iiiiiiiiifflMSiiiiii 


,1^ 


^■TT'TJTfT/'iT^^} 


^^fSvOFPRlNCf}; 


A3 


TO 


DR.    MILLER'S    LETTER 


TO 


A  GENTLEMAN  OF  BALTIMORE, 


IN  REFERENCE  TO  THE  CASE  OP 


THZ  REV.  Ma.  DuxrcAxr. 


BY  JOHN  M.  DUNCAN, 

Pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  Tammany  street,  Baltiimri 


Yet  the  children  of  thy  people  say,  The  way  of  the  Lord  is  not  equal: 
but  as  for  them  their  way  is  not  equal. — Ezek.  xxxiii.  17. 


UaltCmou: 

PUBLISHED  BY  CUSHiNG  &  JEWETT. 
1826. 


JOHN  D.   TOY,  PRINTER, 

Corner  of  St.  Paul  Sf  Market  sts. 


£^^    ^^*^^^-^:^c^^ 


— ^ 


REPLY,  &c. 


*^A  gentleman  of  Baltimore,"  whose  name  does 
not  appear,  feeling,  no  doubt,  a  very  deep  interest 
in  their  general  subjects,  has  supposed  himself  war- 
ranted to  solicit  from  Dr.  Miller's  pen,  some  notice 
of  my  ' 'Remarks  on  the  Rise,  Use,  and  Unlawful- 
ness of  Creeds  and  Confessions  of  Faith  in  the  church 
of  God."  The  '^'uncommonly  clear  and  powerful 
review,"  which  ''the  venerable  editor  of  the  Chris- 
tian Advocate"  had  furnished,  it  was  understood,  had 
not  been  generally  read  by  those,  who  felt  some  re- 
gard, both  for  the  parties  concerned,  and  the  subject 
under  discussion.  There  seemed,  therefore,  to  be 
a  necessity  that  Dr.  M.  should  again  appear  as 
the  defendant  of  the  creed-cause.  His  correspon- 
dent had  suggested  the  alternative  of  addressing 
him  privately,  or  answering  his  communication 
through  the  medium  of  the  press:  and  Dr.  M.  pre- 
ferring the  latter  course,  has  issued  a  long  letter, 
ostensibly  designed  to  elucidate  my  ecclesiastical 
circumstances,  and  to  counteract  the  effects  of  my 
heretical  aberrations.  This  correspondence  has  de- 
volved upon  me  the  unwelcome  task  of  preparing 
the  following  sheets  for  the  press. 


I  am  discarded,  however,  by  the  letter-writer,  as 
••acontrovertist  by  no  means  to  his  taste."     And 
had  he  consulted  his  own  inclinations,  or  addressed 
his  correspondent  privately,  instead  of  canvassing 
my  writings  with  so  much  freedom,  and  criticising 
them  with  so  much  tartness,  I  might  have  been  spar- 
ed the  troublesome,  and  almost  unnecessary,  work 
which  he  has  now  obtruded  upon  my  feelings  and  my 
leisure.      Dr.  M.  could  not  have  supposed,  that  my 
cause  had  been  so  entirely  crushed,  and  the  citadel 
of  refuge  for  a  vanquished   foe   had   been   so  nearly 
demolished,  that  nothing  more  was  wanted  save  the 
finishing  stroke  of  desolation    from    his    generous 
hand.     I  conclude  then,  that  in  rejecting  the   res- 
pondent as  a  champion  not  at  all  \yorthy  of  his  supe- 
rior tactics,  he  has  fancied  the  public  mind  \.o  be 
his  antagonist;  and,  as  I  do  by  no  means  covet  the 
high  honour  he  refuses,  I  augur  that  there  is  some 
hope   that   the  present   controversy   will   soon    be 
stripped    of  all   offensive  personalities. — So  be  it. 
But  the  letter  before  me  must  be  taken  as  it  is;  and 
the  worthy  professor  may,  in  any  future  publication . 
discuss  the  subject  in  the  form  which  he  may  con- 
sider best  suited  to  general  edification. 

In  arranging  the  present  remarks,  they  shall  be 
thrown  into  sections,  according  as  the  nature  of  the 
^subjects  may  admit,  or  as  their  importance  may  re- 
quire. My  intention  is  to  take  up  the  most  impor- 
tant particulars  which  the  letter  has  suggested,  and 
on  which  its  author  reposes  with  most  confidence 
and  com_placency,     Some  observations,  however,  on 


the  character  of  the  ^^Remarks/'  with  which  the 
Doctor  has  prefaced  his  more  serious  discussions, 
must  first  be  noticed:  and  to  these  I  shall  devote 
the  first  division  of  my  reply. 

SECTION  I. 

Dr.  M.  has  been  pleased  to  say,  that  the  ^^conclu- 
sive reason/'  why  he  has   ^ ^forborne  to  make   any 
answer'^  to  my  book,  *^is  that  it  really  requires  no 
answer."^ — ^^He,  (Mr.  D.)  is  so  far  from  having  in- 
validated, or  even  weakened,  any  of  the  arguments 
in  favour  of  creeds,  urged  in  my  Introductory  Lec- 
ture, that  he  has  hardly  so  much  as  touched  them. 
I  have  conversed  repeatedly  with  some  of  the  most 
acute  and  enlightened  men  in  our  country,  and  so- 
licited their  candid  judgment  as  to  the  real  force  of 
Mr.  D's  book.   And  they  have  all,  with  a  single 
exception,  united  strongly  in   the  opinion,  that  he 
has  written  nothing  which  impairs,  in  the  least  de- 
gree, the  strength  of  my  reasoning;  nothing  which 
possesses  such  a  degree,  even  of  plausibility,  as  to 
demand  a  reply.      Why  then  should    I  write  again, 
when  all  my  original  positions  remain,  not  only  un- 
shaken, but  really  unassailed."     These  are   good, 
round,  assertions:  almost  enough  to  make  ahy  man 
lay  down  his  pen  in  despair.    But  then  there  is  one 
**most  acute  and  enlightened"  man,  who  does  not 
think  so  meanly  of  the  ^'Remarks:"  and  a  suspicion 
darts  across  my  brain,  that  the  remainder  might 
have  been  the  advocates  of  the  ereed-systeno.     I 
1* 


make  no  doubt,  however,  that  they  expressed  their 
honest  opinions,  and  I  regret  that  they  have  been 
brought  across  my  path,  as  a  passing  remark  may 
unintentionally  wound  a  friend,  whose  feelings  my 
heart  would  hold  sacred.^  It  seems,  moreover,  that 
Dr.  M.  has  after  all  thought  it  necessary  to  ^Svrite 
again;"  and  to  urge  once  more  the  very  points  so 
strongly  pressed  in  his  "Introductory  Lecture;"  and 
that  too  on  the  apparently  unobtrusive  solicitation 
of  a  ^'gentleman  of  Baltimore." 

It  may  be  necessary  here  to  state,  that  the  ^'Re- 
iiiarks"  were  pledged  to  do  nothing  more,  than  fair- 
ly and  respectfully  to  controvert  the  principles  of 
Dr.  M's  ^'Lecture."  He  was  not  followed  step  by 
step  in  the  arrangement  he  thought  proper  to  make. 
I  chose  to  shape  the  subject  for  myself,  according 
to  my  best  apprehensions;  and  to  take  up  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  ^^Lecture,"  merely  as  they  might  be 
fairly  introduced  in  the  order  of  discussion.  This 
course  put  the  reader  to  the  trouble  of  analysing  my 
^'Remarks,"  in  order  to  range  them  along  with  Dr. 
M's  arguments.  If  he  did  not  please  to  do  this, 
but  to  leave  it  as  undeserving  of  his  effort,  which 
Dr.  M.  appears  to  have  done  in  his  reply,  then  I 
had  conducted  him,  as  far  as  personal  ability  and 
my  time  allowed,  through  the  whole  of  the  subject, 
as  I  apprehended  it.  Perhaps  this  was  an  ill-judg- 
ed course.  But  then  it  seems,  that  throughout  the 
greater  part  no  presbyterian  antagonist  could  be 
found;  that  almost  all  the  propositions  advanced 
were  sound^  and  the  facts  stated  indisputable;  and 


that  it  was  useless  to  labour  through  so  many  pages 
in  proof  of  things  which  no  one  denied.  Yet, 
Dr.  M.  has  thought  proper  to  reply;  the  synod  has 
thought  proper  to  refuse  forbearance;  and  the  book 
is  reviled  as  most  heretical,  and  of  most  injuriouji 
tendency.  There  is  a  veil  over  these  representa- 
tions, which  I  shall  not  attempt  to  penetrate; — a  mist, 
which  time  may  disperse. 

In  sustaining  the  assertions  already  quoted,  Dr. 
M.  says — '^Mr.  D.  is  also  fighting  without  an  ad- 
versary in  all  that  he  has  said,  at  so  much  length, 
and  with  so  much  laboured  rhetoric,  respecting  the 
character  of  many  of  the  christian  clergy,  within 
the  first  three  or  four  hundred  years  after  Christ." 
Afterwards,  when  he  would  throw,  what  he  appa- 
rently supposes  to  have  been,  my  argument  from  the 
brief  review  that  was  taken  of  the  history  of  the 
primitive  church,  into  an  * 'abridged  syllogism,"  he 
states  it  thus: — ''Many  of  the  clergy  began,  very 
early,  to  manifest  an  overbearing  and  grasping  spi- 
rit; therefore,,  it  is  unlawful  for  the  church,  at  pre- 
sent, to  take  any  measures  to  prevent  her  ministers 
from  falling  into  the  same  evil  courses,  and,  for  this 
purpose,  to  ascertain  their  soundness  in  the  faith, 
and  guard  the  purity  of  their  principles." — I  feel  as 
if  it  would  be  doing  Dr.  M.  a  most  serious  injustice, 
to  believe  that  he  saw  nothing  more  in  the  deduc- 
tions, made  from  the  historical  extracts  in  question. 
But  he  has  said  so,  and  I  may  not  dispute  his  word. 
However,  he  may  be  assured  that  there  was  a  vast 
deal  more  implied;  than  he  appears  to  have  disco= 


8 

vered,  of  which  the   following   observations  mavr 
perhaps,  convince  him. 

The  fifth  argument  of  the  '^Introductory^  Lec- 
ture" in  favour  of  creeds,  was  expressed  in  the  fol- 
lowing proposition: — *'The  experience  of  all  ages 
has  found  them  indispensably  necessarj^"  If  this 
proposition  be  true,  it  verily  required  some  hardi- 
hood of  adventure  to  undertake  what,  in  the  '*Let- 
ter,"  has  been  denominated  a  '^confessional  battle.'^ 
The  doctrine  of  the  ''Remarks"  is,  that  the  proposi- 
tion is  not  true,  and  the  argument  was  designed  to 
make  it  appear  untrue.  The  reader  will  please  to 
notice  the  following  particulars: 

1.  Dr.  M.  in  illustrating  his  proposition,  had  be- 
gun with  the  apostolic  age,  and  discovered,  if  I  un- 
derstood him,  an  ecclesiastical  creed  in  use  among 
the  apostles.  By  an  ecclesiastical  creed,  let  it  be 
remembered,  is  to  be  understood  "an  accredited, 
permanent,  public  document" — "a  summary  of 
christian  doctrine" — "a  formulary,"  other  than 
the  scriptures — "a  test"  of  orthodoxy.  Now  the 
apostles  had  no  such  thing,  and  I  undertook  to  show 
that  they  had  not.  The  scriptures  have  not  stated 
the  fact,  that  any  such  document  was  used  by  them  j 
and  history  affords  not  the  slightest  proof  that  they 
left  any  such  instrument  behind  them,  for  the  use 
of  the  churches  after  they  were  gone.  There  has 
existed  in  the  church  a  small  schedule,  which  has 
been  denominated  the  apostles'  creed;  and  about 
this  there  has  been  considerable  discussion.  Some 
have  supposed  that  the  apostles  did  actually  pen  it  5 


that  they  held  a  solemn   convocation   in  order  te 
draw  it  up;  and  that  each  apostle  inserted  his  par- 
ticular article.   Others  have  combated  this  as  a  mere 
figment, — stating,  that   it    was  near  four  hundred 
years  after    Christ    before    it   was  ever  heard  of; 
that  neither  Luke  in  his  history  of  the  apostolical 
transactions,  nor  any  ecclesiastical  author  before 
the  fifth  century,  has  made  any  mention  of  any 
assembly  convened  for  such  a  purpose  by  the  apos- 
tles; that  none  of  the  early  councils  made  any  men- 
tion of  such  a  document,  nor  referred  to  it  as  their 
standard,  or  basis,  or  test;  that  ^^there  could   not 
have  been  a  stronger   or    more  convincing   proof 
brought  against  heretics,  than    to  have  referred  to 
such  a  creed;"  and  that,  '^if  the  apostles  had  made  a 
creed,  it  would  have  been  every  where  the  same 
throughout  all  churches,  and  in  all   ages;  all  chris- 
tians would  have  learnt  it  by   heart;  all  churches 
would  have  repeated  it  after  the  very  same  manner; 
in  fine,  all  authors  would  have  expressed  it  in  the 
same  terms" — the  contrary  of  all  which  is  evident. 
If  this  detail  is  true,  what  becomes  of  Dr.  M's  gene- 
ral proposition,  and  particularly  his  first  specifica- 
tion under  it? — Or  will  he  say,  that  his  position  has 
been  neither  assailed  nor  shaken? 

2.  Dr.  M.  in  carrying  on  his  illustration,  had 
said,  that  in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  not 
only  were  these  creeds  ''more  formally  drawTjb 
out,^^  but  they  were  ^^more  minute,  and  more  ex- 
tensive, than  those  of  earlier  date."  This  too  was 
explicitly  denied  in  the  '^Remarks/'  and  historical' 


10 

proof  was  advanced  to  show  that  it  was  not  correct. 
In  those  early  ages,  or  previous  to  the  council  of 
Nice,  no  such  formulary  is  to  be  found:  but  after 
this  council,  creeds  abounded  so  much,  that  Socrates 
speaks  of  their  '^confused  multitude,''  and  Hilary 
tells  us,  that  they  ^'did  nothing  but  make  creeds" — 
that  they  made  them  arbitrarily,  and  explained  them 
as  arbitrarily.  During  the  period  anterior  to  this 
famous  assembly,  there  was  no  one  part  iciilar  form 
made  use  of.  Du  Pin,  says — "In  the  second  and 
third  ages  of  the  church  we  find  as  many  creeds  as 
authors;  and  the  same  author  sets  down  the  creed 
in  a  different  manner  in  several  places  of  his  works; 
which  plainly  shows,  that  there  was  not  any  creed 
that  was  reputed  to  be  the  apostles',  nor  even  any 
regulated  and  established  form  of  faith. ^^  St. 
Justin,  and  St.  Irenoeus  observe,  that  in  those  days, 
they  had  the  faith  ^  ^deeply  imprinted  on  their 
minds."  Jerome  says,  that  it  *Svas  not  written  on 
paper,  or  with  ink,  but  was  engraved  on  the  fleshly 
tables  of  the  heart. " — Moreover,  some  of  the  exam- 
ples of  early  creeds,  to  which  the  ' 'Lecture"  had  re- 
ferred, were  quoted,  that  they  might  speak  for  them- 
selves, and  demonstrate  to  every  candid  mind,  that 
there  was  not  then  even  the  form  of  an  established 
creed.  And  did  not  all  this  touch  the  proposition, 
which  was  controverted?  Or  was  nothing  more 
done  by  the  respondent,  than  to  play  the  part  of  an 
humble  and  undesired  amanuensis,  to  record  over 
again  the  degeneracy  of  those  unhappy  times,  and  to 
/  infer  that  we  should  d^  nothing  now  to  prevent  a 


11 

fike  *^wide  spreading  degeneracy?"  Is  there  no 
difference  between  the  assertions,  that  ^Hhe  friends 
of  orthodoxy  had  been  in  the  habit  of  framing  creeds 
from  the  earliest  ages,"  and  that  the  friends  of  or- 
thodoxy never  framed  such  an  instrument  until  the 
fourth  century?  And  is  there  no  importance  \Xi 
the  historical  testimony,  which  established  the  lat^ 
ter  assertion,  when  the  former  had  been  made? 

3.  The  doctrine  of  the  *  ^Remarks,"  most  dis- 
tinctly and  most  carefully  stated,  was,  that  creeds 
are  authoritative  instruments,  imposed  upon  the 
human  conscience,  by  being  erected  into  terms  of 
communion  in  spiritual  ordinances.  The  historical 
proof  adduced,  was  intended  to  establish  this  doc- 
trine; by  manifesting  that  until  ecclesiastical  power 
was  acquired  by  ambitious  ecclesiastics,  there  were 
no  such  formularies  in  the  church:  but  that  when 
synods  and  councils  were  introduced  in  the  second 
century,  they  hastened  to  the  supreme  control  over 
divine  ordinances;  and  that  in  the  fourth  century,  for 
the  first  time,  they  drew  out  and  established  such  a 
test.  Synods  and  councils  are  the  framers  and  defen- 
ders of  these  instruments  now:  so  that  human  creeds 
are  still  the  creatures  of  ecclesiastical  power.  More- 
over, the  historical  proof  was  adduced  to  show,  that, 
at  first,  the  churches  were  all  independent  of  each 
other,  and  therefore  were  not  in  circumstances  at 
all  favourable  to  the  sy.stem  of  making  or  imposing 
creeds;  and  that  if  churches  were  independent  of 
each  other  now^  as  they  were  then,  they  would  not 
feel  these  creeds  to   be  * 'indispensably  necessary'^ 


i2 

now,  more  than  they  did  then.  Did  not  these  facts, 
with  the  instantaneous  conclusions  which  were  de- 
duced, ^4n  the  least  impair  the  strength  of  Dr.  M's 
reasoning.^' — He  appears  to  me,  not  only  to  be 
sporting  with  my  feelings,  but  to  be  trifling  with 
his  own  reputation. 

4.  The  habit  of  appealing  to  these  early  ages,  as 
Dr.  M.  had  done,  was  objected  to  in  the  * 'Remarks" 
as  unbecoming  in  christian  divines,  and  as  altogether 
irrelevant  to  an  argument  like  the  present.  This 
same  objection  Dr.  M.  had  made,  under  correspond- 
ing circumstances,  and  when  sustaining  the  presby- 
terian  cause,  against  his  prelatical  adversaries.  He 
seemed  then  to  think,  that  the  degenerate  character 
of  those  ages,  gave  great  force  to  his  objections.  In- 
deed, so  important  was  that  circumstance,  in  his  es- 
timation, that  he  would  not  consent  to  go  beyond 
the  second  century,  which  was  quite  anterior  to 
the  period  of  introducing  creeds;  and  he  condescen- 
ded to  go,  even  that  far,  merely  as  an  act  of  grace, 
thinking  that  when  he  had  the  Bible  in  his  hand, 
nothing  more  was  wanted.  The  * 'Remarks"  fol- 
lowed the  very  same  track;  because  that  the  ''Lec- 
ture," in  sustaining  its  argument,  had  committed 
the  same  sin,  for  which  he  had  censured  episcopa- 
lians. And  is  there  nothing  unseemly  in  referring 
to  a  degenerate  age  for  proof  and  testimony,  in  fa- 
vour of  any  of  the  ecclesiastical  institutions  in  our 
own  day,  when  we  have  the  Bible  in  our  hands? — 
Or  is  it  no  argument  against  creeds  that  they  were 
the  offspring  of  a  degenerate  age?    And  would  it  not 


IS 

follow,  that  instead  of  being  *  ^indispensably  neces- 
sary" to  make  instruments  by  which  to  sustain  their 
ill-gotten  power,  the  ecclesiastics  of  that  age  ought 
rather  to  have  retraced  their  steps,  and  surrendered 
their  usurped  sovereignty?  Or  having  such  an  ex- 
ample before  us,  ought  we  not  to  profit  by  their 
mistake,  and  freely  part  with  that  which  we  are  not 
entitled  to  hold? 

Again:  The  fourth  argument  advanced,  in  fa- 
vour of  creeds,  in  the  *  ^Introductory  Lecture," 
was,  that  'Hhey  are  friendly  to  the  study  of  chris- 
tian doctrine,  and  of  course  to  the  prevalence  of 
christian  knowledge. "  This  position  too  was  con- 
troverted in  the  ^'Remarks,"  and  very  opposite 
ground  was  taken.  Creeds  were  considered  as  un- 
friendly to  the  acquisition  of  christian  knowledge, 
because  they  take  divine  truth  out  of  its  bibli- 
cal connexions;  throw  it  into  scholastic  forms;  sub- 
stitute abstract  propositions,  as  disputable  as  they 
are  philosophical,  for  plain  practical  law;  and  inter- 
fere with  the  varied  operations  of  different  minds, 
by  forcing  a  unity  of  sentiment  at  the  expense  of 
free  inquiry.  This  view  of  creeds,  which  every 
man  may  see  exemplified  in  the  controversies  of  the 
present  day,  was  traced  up  to  the  same  degenerate 
ages,  when  scholastic  theology,  as  correlative  with 
ecclesiastical  power,  was  introduced  as  another  ac- 
tive cause,  creating  the  indispensable  necessity  for 
these  instruments.  Thus  history,  instead  of  passing 
any  eulogy  upon  their  power  to  extend  spiritual 
erudition,  proclaims  them  from  the  first  to  have 
2 


14< 

been  mere  tests  of  philosophy,  and  therefore  the 
ministers  of  strife  and  controversy.  Such  they  have 
always  been,  and  such  they  are  now.  This  train  of 
argugient  it  was  thought  proper  to  undertake;  and  if 
it  can  conclusively  be  made  out,  every  candid  reader 
must  feel,  that  the  position  it  assails  is  fairly  'de- 
molished." I  did  the  best  I  could  at  the  time,  and 
shall  not  here  resume  the  subject, — Dr.  M.  having 
in  this  case,  as  in  almost  every  other,  unceremo- 
niously passed  by  every  thing  that  was  said. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  state— as,  after  having 
read  the  '^Letter,"  it  seems  difficult  to  say  what 
amount  of  explanation  is  not  necessary — that  I  do 
not  indiscriminately  condemn  all  who  lived  in  the 
early  ages,  to  which  this  argument  refers.  Angus-* 
tine,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  Irenaeus,  Jerome,  and 
others,  entered  their  serious  protest  against  the  sec- 
tarian measures  of  their  own  day.  And  no  doubt 
there  were  many,  belonging  to  the  class  of  private 
christians, — men  of  good  common  sense,  and  sound 
moral  judgment, — who  expressed  their  noiseless 
and  ineffectual  testimony  against  the  inroads  of  ec- 
clesiastical power.  Such  men  there  are  in  every 
society,  both  political  and  religious.  Their  voice  is 
seldom  heard  in  the  ferments  of  a  popular  policy;  or 
;  when  the  public  mind  has  sunk  into  indolence  and 
sluggishness,  subdued  and  paralysed  by  the  success 
^of  a  party.  Such  individuals,  however,  are  gene- 
rally found,  though  they  may  be  unfrequently  called 
out,  to  be  the  redeeming  corps  of  a  declining  commu- 
nity; and  happy  is  it  for  that  community,  when 


15 

they  have  moral  courage  enough  to  meet  their  mo- 
ral responsibilities.      Calvin  has  happily  expressed 
this  condition  of  human  society,  in  reference  to  ages 
preceding  him,  in  the  following  language: — *^Letu.* 
now  return  to  human  laws.      If  they  tend  to  intro- 
duce any  scruple  into  our  minds,  as  though  the  ob- 
servance of  them  were  essentially    necessary,  we 
assert,  that  they  are  unreasonable  impositions  on  the 
conscience.      For  our  consciences  have  to  do,  not 
with  men,  but  with   God   alone.      And  this  is  the 
meaning  of  the  well-known  distinction,  maintained 
in  the  schools,  between  a  human  tribunal  and  the 
court  of  conscience.      When  the  whole  world  wa,-^ 
enveloped  in  the  thickest  shades  of  ignorance,  this 
little  spark  of  light  still  remained  unextinguish- 
ed, so  that  they  acknowledged  the  conscience  of  man 
to  be  superior  to  all  human  judgments.      It  is  true 
that  what  they  confessed  in  one  word,  they  after- 
wards overturned  in  fact;  yet  it  was  the  will  of  God. 
that  even   at  that  time  there   should  remain  some 
testimony  in   favour  of  christian  liberty,  to  rescue 
the   conscience  from   the  tyranny   of  men."     The 
misfortune,  however,   is,  that  such   men  too  often 
'    retire  from  public  view,  and,  doubting  their  compe- 
tency to  hold  in  check  a  growing  evil,  leave  it  to 
cure  itself. 

In  making  up  the  historical  testimony,  intended 
to  support  the  doctrine  of  the  '^Remarks,"  I  took 
the  liberty  of  summoning  Dr.  M.  himself  as  a  wit- 
ness; and  quoted  several  extracts  from  letters,  pub- 
lished  by  him,  a  few  years  ago,  on  the  points  in- 


16 

volved  in  the  episcopal  controversy.  The  language 
of  some  of  these  extracts  has  been. thought,  by  ma- 
Dy,  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  phraseology  of  the 
' 'Lecture;"  and  to  show,  that  Dr.  M.  inferring 
from  the  degeneracy  of  the  early  ages  that  their 
testimony  was  worth  nothing,  and  rejecting  all  hu- 
man testimony,  in  or  dermore  fully  to  sustain  his 
inference,  had  retreated,  not  to  his  creed,  but  to  the 
Bible  alone.  I  thought  so  too.  Dr.  M.  howe- 
ver, is  very  much  surprised  that  any  inconsistency 
should  for  a  moment  be  supposed  to  exist.  It  is 
never  very  pleasant  to  foil  an  opponent  by  his  own 
weapons;  and  it  might  be  rude  now  to  press  the 
controversy  in  that  form,  especially  as  he  has  une- 
quivocally declared  his  present  opinions,  and  seems 
to  mourn  that  it  is  impracticable  for  our  Bible  so- 
cieties to  send  the  confession  of  faith  along  with  the 
Bible.  I  beg  leave,  however,  to  offer  some  reasons, 
why  it  is  supposed  that  the  extracts  in  question  are 
somewhat  contradictory. 

1.  In  the  ''Letters"  he  speaks  of  the  Bible  alone-^ 
of  the  word  of  God  as  being  the  sole  standard — of 
the  traditions  and  inventions  of  men,  as  not  to 
be  followed — of  our  having  but  one  master,  even 
Christ — of  our  obligation  to  call  no  man,  or  body 
of  men,  masters,  on  earth,  &c.  i.  e.  I  supposed  him 
to  be  maintaining,  in  all  its  integrity,  this  argument 
against  the  episcopalians, — that  it  was  death  to  any 
cause  which  could  not  be  sustained  by  the  Bible 
alone.  To  quote  some  new  extracts: — Thus  he 
smiles  at  a  prelatical  concession: — *^In  other  words,. 


17 

they  confess,  that  the  scriptures,  taken  absolutely 
alone,  will  not  bear  them  out  in  their  claims.  But 
they  suppose,  and  insist,  that  the  facts  which  are 
mentioned  in  the  sacred  history,  taken  in  connexion 
with  the  writings  of  tlie  early  fathers,  decidedly 
support  this  claim.  That  is,  the  New  Testament,  in 
its  own  divine  simplicity,  is  insujfficient  for  their 
purpose;  but  explained,  and  aided,  by  the  writings 
of  fallible  men,  it  declares  positively  in  their  favour. 
Is  it  so.^ — What  is  this  but  saying,  that  the  Bible  is 
not  a  rule  either  perfect,  or  sufficient  for  the 
church?  What  is  this  but  embracing  a  principle 
ivhich  makes  human  testimony  co-ordinate  with 
that  of  God;  and  which  must  involve  us  in  all  the 
mazes  and  uncertainty  of  tradition."*  Thus  also 
he  quotes  the  declaration  of  the  celebrated  Chil- 
lingworth  with  great  commendation: — ^^I,  for  my 
part,  after  a  long,  and,  as  I  verily  hope  and  believe, 
impartial  search  of  the  true  way  to  eternal  happi- 
ness, do  profess  plainly,  that  I  cannot  find  any  rest 
for  the  sole  of  my  feet,  but  upon  this  rock  only,  viz. 
the  Scriptures.  I  see  plainly,  and  with  my  own 
eyes,  councils  against  councils;  some  fathers  against 
other  fathers;  the  same  fathers  against  themselves; 
a  consent  of  fathers  of  one  age  against  the  consent 
of  fathers  of  another  age;  and  the  church  of  one  age 
against  the  church  of  another  age," — ^^But  it  is 
needless,"  continues  Dr.  M.  ^*to  multiply  reason- 
ings, or  authorities  on  this  subject.  The  sufficient 
cy  and  infallibility  of  the  scriptures  alone,  as  % 
*  Letters,  vol.  l.p.  U9**-20, 
2^ 


18 

rule  of  faith  and  practice,  was  assumed  as  the  granJ 
principle  of  the  reformation  from  popery,  and  is  ac- 
knowledged to  be  the  foundation  of  the  protestant 
cause.''*  Now  Dr.  M.  does  not  speak  in  this  plain 
manner  in  his  ^'Lecture.''  He  does  not  come  out 
unequivocally,  and  say  that  the  Bible  is  the  only 
rule — the  sole  standard.  On  the  contrary,  he  speaks 
of  the  Bible  as  the  only  infallible  rule;  and  then 
employs  all  his  argument  to  show  that  this  only  in- 
fallible rule  is  not  sufficient,  but  that  we  must  have 
2i  creed  to  explain  and  aid  the  Bible;— a  co-ordi- 
nate instrument.  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  speak 
of  the  grand  principle  of  the  reformation  from  pope- 
ry, the  acknowledged  foundation  of  the  protestant 
cause,  being  properly  understood;  as  if  there  was 
any  difficulty  in  understanding  it,  saving  that  it  is 
not  very  easy  to  perceive  how  authoritative  creeds 
can  be  introduced  into  protestant  churches,  consis- 
tently with  its  evident  import;  and  as  if  it  had  not 
been  framed,  purposely  to  shut  out  the  decisions  of 
synods  and  councils. 

To  lay  two  sentences  alongside  of  each  other,  and 
to  show  that  Dr.  M's  attempt  to  explain  does  not  re- 
lieve him: — In  the  '^Letters  concerning  the  order 
and  constitution  of  the  christian  ministry,"  he  says: 
*^As  the  christian  ministry  is  an  office  deriving  its 
existence  and  its  authority  solely  from  Jesus  Christ, 
the  King  and  Head  of  his  church,  it  is  obvious  that 
his  word  is  the  only  rule  by  which  any  claims  to 
this  office  can  properly  be  tried,  and  the  duties  and 

^  Vol.  1.  p.  26. 


19 

powers  of  those  who  bear  it,  ascertained/'*  In  hi& 
letter  to  '^a  gentleman  of  Baltimore,"  he  says:— **I 
say,  how  is  she  (the  church)  to  ascertain  that  this  is 
the  character  of  her  candidates  for  the  holy  minis- 
try, when,  according  to  the  brother  whom  I  am  con- 
strained to  oppose,  she  is  forbidden  to  employ  a7iy 
other  test  than  that  which  the  most  corrupt  and  un- 
qualified will  bear,  (the  Bible)  just  as  well  as  the 
niost  excellent;  and  which  is,  of  course  in  reference, 
to  the  point  to  be  decided,  no  test  at  all."! 
Ah!  pudet,  pudet! 

2.  When  Dr.  M.  was  conducting  his  argument 
with  episcopalians,  he  found  it  necessary  to  object 
to  human  testimony,  in  which  the  strength  of  their 
reasoning  lies,  as  beneath  the  grave  and  solemn  sub- 
ject on  which  he  wrote.  But  as  human  testimony 
has  so  much  to  do  with  all  the  sectarian  varieties 
that  exist  in  the  church,  he  steps  forward,  like  a 
candid  man,  and  discards  the  whole,  as  an  unhal- 
lowed intrusion  upon  sacred  things,  and  appears  to 
view  the  sanctuary  as  God's  own  tabernacle.  He 
could  not  sustain  his  cause  on  any  other  principle; 
because  his  antagonist  would  not  suffer  him  to  de- 
cry human  testimony,  and  then  to  introduce  just  as 
much  of  it  as  suited  himself.  Now  let  us  suppose 
some  episcopalian  really  convinced  by  the  Doctor's 
argument,  and  conscientiously  brought  over  to  the 
presbyterian  cause.  The  convert  had,  or  had  not, 
been  previously  an  officiating  minister.  He  how- 
ever wishes  to  be  so  employed  in  the  new  associa- 

*Vol.  I,  p.  25.         -  t  Page  24. 


so 

tion  which  he  has  been  induced  to  join.  Dr.  M. 
hands  to  him  the  confession  of  faith,  and  coally 
asks^ — '^Do  you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the 
confession  of  faith  of  this  church,  as  containing  tha 
system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  holy  scriptures?" — 
'^The  confession  of  faith  of  this  church!  Pray  Sir, 
is  this  the  Bible?" — ^'This  confession,  my  friend," 
replies  Dr.  M.  "is  a  summary  of  the  Bible;  it  con- 
tains whatever  is  important  in  the  Bible,  ar- 
ranges religious  doctrine  much  better,  and  is  a  more 
effectual  test  of  orthodoxy.  It  is  well  calculated 
to  extend  *the  prevalence  of  christian  knowledge;' 
it  is  a  tribute  to  truth  and  candour,  which  we  owe 
to  other  churches  and  to  the  world;  and  it  is  'a 
depository,  a  guardian,  and  a  witness  of  the  truth;' 
all  of  which  is  lost,  if  we  take  the  Bible  alone;  so 
that  if  you  reject  this,  or  hesitate  to  receive  and 
adopt  it,  you  will  necessarily  become  a  latitudina- 
rian  and  a  heretic;  for  these  have  been  the  most 
zealous  opposers  of  such  ^excellent  standards.' " — 
*'Ah,  but  Dr.  M.  did  you  not  lell  me,  that  *as  the 
christian  ministry  is  an  office  deriving  its  existence 
and  its  authority  solely  from  Jesus  Christ,  the  King 
and  Head  of  his  church,  it  is  obvious  that  his  word 
is  the  only  rule  by  which  any  claims  to  this  office 
can  properly  be  tried?  And  when  I  objected  to 
you,  that  your  liberality,  in  sustaining  such  a  pro- 
position, seemed  to  me  to  involve  you  in  a  collision 
with  this  confession  of  faith,  did  you  not  tell  me 
that  we  had  but  'one  master,  even  Christ,'  whose 
word  was  our  sole  standard;    and  wind  up  your 


reply,  by  awakening  all  my  fears,  when  you  said — 
*Happy  will  it  be  for  us,  if  we  can  appeal  to  the 
great  searcher  of  hearts,  that  we  have  not  followed 
the  traditions  and  inventions  of  men,  but  the 
sure  word  of  prophecy,  which  is  given  us  to  be  a 
light  to  our  feet,  and  a  lamp  to  our  path,  to  guide 
us  in  the  way  of  peace?'  Is  not  my  human  testi- 
mony as  good  as  your  human  testimony?'' 

Dr.  M.  must  finish  the  dialogue,  as  I  am  unable 
to  sustain  the  consistency  for  him.  The  case  sup- 
posed may  indeed  be  altogether  the  product  of  a 
delirious  imagination;  for  episcopalians  think  as 
much  of,  and  differ  as  much  about,  their  ecclesiasti- 
cal formularies,  as  presbyterians  do.  But  in  the 
judgment  of  charity  the  case  has  been  supposed;  as 
presbyterians  do  not  always  reason  illogically,  and 
episcopalians  are  not  always  proof  against  a  good 
argument.  Moreover,  thus  much  I  thought  proper 
to  say,  by  way  of  explanation.  Dr.  M.  may  not, 
perhaps,  be  inconsistent  with  himself,  and  the 
reader  may  see,  that  the  Bible  alone,  and  the 
Bible  with  a  creed,  mean  the  same  thing.  But  I 
thought,  when  the  * 'Remarks"  were  penned,  that 
these  were  very  different  things,  and  I  think  so 
now. 

SECTION  II. 

In  continuing  his  objections.  Dr.  M.  says — ^'A 
still  more  remarkable  charge  to  which  Mr.  D's 
book  is  liable,  is,  that  while  he  maintains,  with  so 
ipuch  zeal  and  vehemence,  the  utter  unlawfulness 


22 

of  all  creeds  and  confessions,  he  distinctly  allo^^'^ 
the  indispensable  necessity  of  having  a  confession 
of  faith,  and  confesses  that  he  has,  and  employs  one 
himself" — I  beg  leave,  very  respectfully,  to  say, 
that  the  charge  is  most  remarkable;  so  much  so, 
that  it  is  far  from  being  correct.  One  of  the 
necessary  qualities  of  a  good  controvertist  is,  that 
he  should  carefully  endeavour  to  understand  his 
opponent;  and  most  scrupulously  avoid  misrepre- 
senting words,  or  plirases,  or  sentences,  which  it- 
would  require  some  ingenuity  to  misunderstand.-^ 
I  did  not  condemn  all  creeds,  taking  the  term  creed 
in  its  literal  sense;  but  I  did  condemn  all  creeds, 
taking  the  term  creed  in  its  ecclesiastical  sense,  i.  e. 
as  expressing  a  rule  of  faith  and  manners,  composed, 
authorised,  and  enforced  by  a  voluntary  association. 
I  did  not  confess  that  I  employed  a  creed,  in  the 
ecclesiastical  sense  of  that  term;  but  did  confess 
that  I  had  one,  in  the  literal  sense  of  the  term;  and 
admitted  that  every  man  must  have  one,  as  far  a« 
he  has  investigated,  to  his  own  satisfaction,  any  set 
of  subjects  which  may  be  proposed  to  his  belief. 
It  is  difficult  to  perceive  how  my  meaning  could 
have  been  mistaken,  or  not  to  be  grieved  by  the 
use  of  such  unfair  artifice  in  argument. — I  must 
explain  myself  again. 

Faith  is  one  of  the  great  distinguishing  attributes 
of  the  christian:  and  faith.  Dr.  M.  himself  would 
define  to  be,  reliance  upon  the  testimony  of  God. 
God  has  revealed  certain  truths  in  the  Bible,  which 
he  calls  upon  men  to  believe,,  and  which  they  are 


23 

explicitly  required  personally  to  examine  and  ap- 
prehend, in  order   that   they  may   believe    them. 
Every  man  who  has  obeyed  the  divine   command- 
ment, and  received  as  true  the  things  revealed,  has 
formed  a  creed; — in  other  words,  he  believes  what 
the   Holy   Spirit    has    revealed.     Without  this  he 
cannot  be  a  christian,  but  plunges,  as  an  obstinate 
rebel,    into    everlasting    perdition.     The  sentence 
is — '^Ile  that  believeth  not  shall  be    damned:" — 
**He  that  believeth  not  the  Son,  shall  not  see  life; 
but    the    wrath   of    God  abideth     on     him."     To 
save  men  from  this  awful  issue,  and  to  bring  home 
to  their  hearts  the  truths,  which  are  addressed,   in 
the  scriptures,  with  so  much  plainness  and  point  to 
the  human  mind,  the  comforter  is  sent: — ^^He  shall 
reprove  the  ivorld  of  sin,  because  they  believe  not 
on  me."     Most  indubitably  then,  every  real  chris- 
tian has  a  creed — or  certain  things  which  he  believes. 
In  making  this  declaration,  may  it  be  considered, 
in  any  sense,  as  conceding  the  point  in  controversy? 
Do  I  thereby  allow,  that  men  may  form  voluntary 
associations,    and   frame  articles  of  belief   for  one 
another?     Or  that,  our  fathers,  being  good,   wise, 
and  holy  men,  far  more  so  than  any  of  their  chil- 
dren, had  a  right  to  form  a  test  of  orthodoxy,  com- 
prising certain  abstract  propositions,  which  in  their 
apprehensions    were    certainly    true?     No,  verilj'. 
Did  not  our   fathers  examine  for  themselves,   and 
form  a  creed    for  themselves?     And  may  we  not^ 
with  equal  freedom,  and  equal  confidence,  do  the 
same  thing,  each  for  himself?     If  the  fathers  had 


24 

possessed  the  talents  of  as  many  archangels,  would 
their  superiority  over  our  little  capacities,  entitle 
them  to  usurp  the  prerogative  of  the  Lord  Jesus, 
and  tell  us  what  we  must  believe,  on  pain  of  for- 
feiting gospel  privileges? 

Further,  I  have  supposed,  that  as  the  word  of 
God  is  intended  for  the  human  family,  and  as  they 
may  all  have  the  Holy  Spirit  as  their  common 
.  teacher,  there  will  be  found  a  certain  coincidence 
of  sentiment,  at  least  in  regard  of  the  first  princi- 
ples of  Christianity.  This  coincidence  I  ventured 
to  represent  as  something  like  a  social  creed:  that 
is,  that  the  Bible  being  so  plain  a  book,  as  Dr.  M. 
himself  will  admit,  there  are  certain  truths  which 
men  will  embrace  in  common,  from  the  very  nature 
of  the  case.  Truths  which  no  test  of  orthodoxy 
can  make  more  plain;  truths  which  may  be  brought 
into  dispute  by  the  manner  in  which  such  tests  may 
express  them;  and  truths  which  the  different  sects 
may  and  do  fully  embrace,  notwithstanding  their 
tests  may  be  exceedingly  varied.  Some  of  these 
truths,  I  undertook  to  state,  and  Dr.  M.  has,  as  he 
supposes,  caught  me  tripping.  But  nevertheless, 
in  the  primitive  church,  as  Irenaeus  reports,  chris- 
tians throughout  the  world  believed  these  things, 
as  though  they  had  inhabited  a  single  house,  while 
they  had  no  permanent,  accredited,  document,  in 
the  shape  of  an  ecclesiastical  creed. 

One  sentence  occurring  in  the  ^  ^Remarks,  ^^  on 
this  subject,  has  struck  Dr.  M.  as  peculiarly  unfor- 
tunate for  my  argument.     It  is  as  follows;  «*Here- 


"25 

ticks  were  censured  and  avoided  by  common  con- 
sent, under  the  operation  of  that  inherent  power, 
which  religious  society  has,  like  all  other  societies, 
to  regulate  itself  according  to  its  own  constituent 
principles."  This  sentence,  it  seems,  needs  some 
explanation.  When  I  wrote  it,  my  impressions 
were  of  this  kind:  that  when  certain  elemental 
truths  should  be  necessarily  adopted  by  any  com- 
munity, or  by  society  at  large,  any  man,  who  would 
undertake  to  question  them,  would  be  condemned 
by  every  tongue;  and  thus  hereticks  would  be  kept 
out  by  the  force  of  enlightened  public  opinion. 
So  it  was  in  the  primitive  church.  So  it  should  be 
now,  without  the  help  of  an  ecclesiastical  creed: 
and  so  it  is,  in  certain  things,  independently  of  all 
these  arbitrary  rules.  Public  opinion  is  always  to 
be  respected  and  consulted,  and  that  too  just  in  pro- 
portion as  it  is  enlightened.  It  will  eventually  over- 
turn every  thing  which  opposes  it,  and  establish 
its  own  enlarged  and  liberal  principles.  I  supposed 
then,  that  in  the  case  specified,  the  integrity  of  these 
elementary  truths  would  have  been  sufficiently  prO" 
tected,  without  the  interference  of  ecclesiastical  pow- 
er; and  that  ecclesiastical  power  could  only  give 
importance  to  the  opponents  of  such  truths,  by 
making  a  fuss  about  them,  or  by  undertaking  for- 
Tually  to  chastise  them.  *'It  was  not  necessary, ^^ 
says  Dupin,  "to  assemble  councils  in  order  to  own 
the  truth  and  condemn  error." 

Again,  my  impressions  were,    that    this  coinci- 
dence of  sentiment,  would  naturally  extend  itself, 
3 


26 

by  the  habitual  intercourse  to  which  it  would  lead- 
Union  is  not  only  the  basis  of  communion,  but  com- 
munion promotes  union.  There  is  no  more  com- 
mon result  from  the  operations  of  society  than  this 
very  one.  Separate  men  into  ecclesiastical  or  poli- 
tical communities,  and  they  acquire  a  sectarian  like- 
ness. They  will  have  common  sentiments,  common 
language,  and  common  habits.  Indeed,  one  of  the 
great  evils  flowing  from  our  voluntary  associations, 
is,  that  they  divide  men  into  small  classes  on  unna- 
tural principles;  and  so  prevent  that  spiritual  unity 
which  might  exist,  by  narrowing  the  intercourse 
which  christians  ought  to  have  with  each  other. 
The  practical  virtues  of  believers,  in  the  exercise  of 
which  they  might  exert  a  reciprocal  influence  of  the 
most  happy  character,  have  not  their  full  play;  but 
are  often  metamorphosed  into  those  offensive  quali- 
ties v/hich  party  contests  require.  If  then  society 
was  left  to  feel  the  full  force  of  whatever  virtues  its 
members  might  have,  instead  of  being  diverted  to 
secure  or  sustain  some  sectarian  objects,  not  only 
might  any  heretical  influence  be  speedily  repressed, 
but  social  virtue  would  be  increased.  In  other  words, 
if  men  would  cease  to  interfere  with  one  another, 
quit  their  **doubtful  disputations,''  and  honestly 
seek  to  promote  each  other's  spiritual  welfare,  we 
should  have  more  unity  tha^i  all  the  synods  and 
councils  on  earth  ever  have  produced,  or  ever  can 
produce. 

Once  more.      It  was  my  impression,  that  even 
when  a  hi2;h  excitement  occurs,  the  more  mildnes5 


27 


I 


that  is  displayed,  the   sooner  that  excitement  will 
subside;    the    different    combatants    will    the  more 
speedily  rise,  or  be  reduced,  to  their  own  level ;  and 
that  it  is  an  extreme  case,  when  mere  power  must  be 
introduced,  and  all  arguments  be  answered  hy  force. 
In  religious  matters,   no  disputant  is  at  liberty  to 
suppose  such  an  extreme  case;   because  church  go- 
vernment is  a  mere  matter  of  moral  influence,  to 
be  sustained  by  mere  moral  means,  and  leaves  all 
beyond  to  the  arbitration  of  the  Lord  Jesus.      The 
union  between  church  and  state  has  begotten  differ- 
ent ideas,  and  ra^r^ power  has  been  solicited  to  settle 
a  m.oral  question.     Ecclesiastical  creeds  belong  to 
this  progeny;  and,  as  might  have  been   supposed, 
controversy  has  been  prolonged,  not  settled.      So, 
after  the  council  of  Nice,  it  was  long  before  the 
orthodox  could  settle  what  the  creed  ought  to  be, 
and  Arianism  has  not  been  banished  yet.     Hence 
also  the  contests  between  Calvinists  and  Arminians 
have  been  perpetuated  to  the  present  time,  and  we 
are  invited  to  sustain  all  the  prejudices  of  ages  past; 
ages  which  were  thrown  into  commotion,  by  combin- 
ing religious  and  political  principles  together  in  one 
common  mass.      Such  is  the  effect  of  power,  when 
it  is  summoned  to  decide  a  moral  question.     At  last 
it  will  be  found,  in  pursuing  such  a  course,  that  the 
civil  arm  cannot  sustain  an  ecclesiastical  domination. 
The  world   has   at  length  discovered  the  mistake; 
politicians,  who  have  any  insight  into  the  principles 
of  their  science,  feel  the  difficulty;   and  while  the 
nations  of  the  earth  are  marching  through  the  great 


28 

revolution,  we  Americans    have    some    antedated 
documents   to    ^^nail    to    the   cross."       Our    eccle- 
siastical rulers,    however,   do  not   yet  understand, 
that  religious  society  can  regulate  itself,  under  the 
blessing  of  the  Head  of  the  church;  but  they  must 
be  continually  coveting  a  supremacy,  which  under- 
takes   to   correct  the  errors   of  others,  while  they 
never  look  at  their  own.      A  few  years  ago,  there 
were  two    great  political    parties   in   these  United 
States.    What  if  they  had  written  out  their  respect- 
ive political  creeds;  and,  forming  assemblies  to  give 
importance  to  their  sentiments,  had  regularly  train- 
ed up  their  children  in  the  faith,  which  the  wisdom 
of  their  fathers  had  prescribed!     Would  they  not 
have  perpetuated  their  strife?    Changing  terms,  such 
has  been  the  value  of  the  different  creeds  of  differ- 
ent ecclesiastical  parties.      And,  as  in  the  one  case, 
society  has  regulated  itself,  so  would  it  have  done 
in  the  other. 

Dr.  M.  has  made  it  necessary  for  me  to  offer 
some  other  explanations,  in  consequence  of  the  fol- 
lowing assertion: — ^^Spectresof  monstrous  form  are 
constantly  flitting  before  his  (Mr.  D's)  eyes;  and 
though  most  other  people  see  them  to  be  spectres 
only,  he  cannot  be  persuaded  to  believe  that  they 
have  not  a  real  existence.  On  such  a  feverish  judg- 
ment, I  have  little  hope  of  making  an  impression; 
but  to  you,  (a  gentleman  of  Baltimore,)  my  dear 
isir,  allow  me  to  appeal,  and  to  ask,  whether  the 
doctrine  of  creeds,  as  held  by  me,  has  been  fairly 
represented  in  Mr.  D's  page§." 


29 

Passing  by  the  character  of  these  assertions,  or 
rather  of  the  language  in  which  they  are  expressed, 
I  have  to  say,  that  if  I  have  misrepresented  Dr.  M. 
in  any  tiling,  I  am  very  sorry  for  it.     It  was  done 
very  unintentionally.     But  it  must  be  recollected^ 
that  we  had  both  taken  up  a  subject  of  general   in- 
terest to  society;  and  that  all  the  reasonings  must  be 
conducted  in   a  manner  to  meet  its  actual  connex- 
ions with  society.     At  least  such  were  my  convic- 
tions; and  I  made  use   of  Dr.  M's  * 'Lecture,"  not 
for   the  sake  of  s}  stematically  answering  its  state- 
ments, but  to  meet  its  general  principles,  so  far  as 
he  had,  according  to  my  apprehensions,  brought  for- 
ward the  subject  in  that  form;  and  in  defence   of 
views,  charged  against  me,  which  I  could  not  deny. 
His  own  definition  of  a  creed,  was  given  in  his  own 
words;    and  the   following  observations   were  ap- 
pended.— ''This  definition,  perhaps,  states  the  sub- 
ject in  its  Tnildest  and  least  offensive  terms.     But 
whether  it  will   convey  a  full  and  entire  view  of  a 
creed  or  confession  of  faith  to  the  minds  of  his  read- 
ers, is  very  questionable;  or  rather  it  is  absolutely 
certain  it  will  not,  and  cannot.      The  second  part  of 
it  does,  indeed,  partialis/  express  the  matter  of  op- 
pression, against  which  we  protest;  and  it  does  this 
in  the  least  objectionable  form:  but  it  does  not  de- 
clare the  ^sore  eviP  ^?^  broad  terms  and  in  plain 
language,^^     This  was  surely  affording  a  fair  cover 
for  Dr.  M's  peculiarities  in  defining  the  matter  in 
controversy.    And  I  cannotimagine  why  he  should 
complain  of  any  unfair  representation.     It  is  true, 


30 

that  some  of  his  expressions,  which  were  thought  a 
little  uncourteoiis  and  dogmatical,  were  quoted  in 
proof  of  a  much  harsher  doctrine,  than  his  defini- 
tion expressed.  But  how  could  that  be  avoided? 
If  Dr.  M's  phraseology  was  inconsistent  with  his 
mild,  and  comparatively  inoffensive  definition,  that 
was  no  fault  of  mine.  But  when  a  man  comes  up 
to  me  with  burning  words  like  these, — '^subscrib- 
ing a  church  creed  is  not  a  mere  formality;  but  a 

VERY  SOLEMN  TRANSACTION,  WHICH  MEANS  MUCH, 
AND  INFERS  THE  MOST  SERIOUS  OBLIGATIONS.       For 

myself,  I  know  of  no  transaction  in  which  insince- 
rity is  more  justly  chargeable  with  the  dreadful 
sin  of  lying  to  ike  Holy  Ghost  than  in  this,^^ — it 
is  surely  enough  to  make  one  look  about,  and  ascer- 
tain where  he  is  standing.  Annanias  and  Sapphira 
start  up  before  the  view,  in  forms  frightful  as  angels 
of  darkness,  with  their  hideous  aspects  and  clanking 

chains.       Perjured    minister broken    ordination 

vows — and  such  like  phrases,  follow  with  eA^ery 
breeze;  and  as  heaven  or  hell,  souls  redeemed  or 
souls  lost  by  ministerial  influence,  form  alternatives 
of  no  small  consideration,  one  almost  feels  as  if  the 
feet  of  the  young  men  were  at  the  door."  I  entreat 
Dr.  M.  to  illustrate  his  subject  in  a  different  man- 
ner, if  he  wishes  my  nerves  to  lie  still  under  his 
milder  views  of  creeds,  or  of  the  obligation  which 
they  imply. 

But  to  the  subject  itself.  How  far  do  my  oppo- 
nents intend  to  carry  the  obligation  of  their  creeds? 
I  cannot  understand  them.     Do  they  design,  that  a 


31. 

creed,  which  a  man  subscribes,  should  be  obligatory 
on  his  conscience?       The   reader  knows,   that   an 
honest  man's  creed  ought  to  lie  very  close   to  his 
conscience.      But  I  have  heard  some  say,  that  the 
creed  of  the  presbyterian  church  is  not  obligatory 
on  the  conscience  of  those  who  subscribe  it.      Can 
this    be?       Others    have  said  nothing   about    that 
delicate   matter.      And    others    again   have    talked 
about  a  minister's  leaving  the  church,  where  he  has 
been,  and    still  is,  successful   in   his  labours,   and 
o;oing  elsewhere  to  seek  for  people  who  might  agree 
with  him;  as  if  there  were  no  moral  considerations 
to  be  weighed — nothing  but  the  ecclesiastical  forms 
of  a  voluntary  association  to  be  consulted;  and  as  if 
a  minister  had  no  preliminaries  to  such  a  step,  to 
settle,  between  his  conscience  and  his  Master.     But 
suppose  an  individual,  thus   circumstanced,  should 
depart  to  meet  a  more  congenial  settlement;  would 
he  escape  censure?     His  opponents  v/ould,  perhaps, 
rejoice   to  witness  the  removal.     But  would  they 
forget  his  defection  the  sooner,  or  condemn  him  the 
less?  Perchance  ecclesiastical  rules  mio-ht  be  foro-ot- 
ten;  and  the  nature  of  a  moral  compact,  formed 
between  sanctified  hearts,  on  the  pledge  of  a  com- 
mon  hope,  or  between   a  father  and  his  spiritual 
children,  by  ties  which  they  mutually  understand  to 
be  eternal,  might  be  then  called  up  into  warm  discus- 
sion.    And  rather  let  me  meet  the  censure  of  an 
ecclesiastical  body,  than  the  glance  of  a  redeemed 
spirit,  whose  confidence  in  my  moral  integrity  has 


32 

been  disappointed,  or  who  has  detected  me,  at  the 
altars  of  God,  destitute  of  a  '^natural  affection." 

I  do  not  understand  my  brethren,  nor  Dr.  M. 
speaking  in  their  name.  If  the  creed  of  the  presby- 
terian  church  is  a  mere  summary  of  scriptural  doc- 
trine, not  obligatory  on  the  conscience,  why  not 
say  so  in  words  which  are  perfectly  intelligible?  If 
it  be  not  obligatory  on  the  conscience,  why  have 
they  treated  me  as  they  have  done,  because  I  threw 
it  oiT  from  my  conscience? — If  it  be  obligatory  on 
the  conscience,  why  do  they  talk  of  a  mere  sif??i~ 
mari/,  and  tell  us  that  the  only  question  in  dispute, 
is  about  the  practical  itsefulness  of  such  an  instru- 
ment? Why  do  they  make  it  a  term  of  communion, 
when  in  'Hhe  Holiest  of  all"  they  confer  with 
a  devoted  youth,  about  his  entering  into  'Hhe  holy 
ministry?"  Why  do  they  trace  out  any  scruples, 
which  a  tender  conscience  may  feel  on  the  sub- 
ject,— and  that  after  they  have  clearly  ascertained 
that  no  heterodoxy  exists,  even  upon  their  own 
principles — into  a  necessary  opposition  to  some 
things  which  the  word  of  God  has  indisputably  es- 
tablished, and  into  an  obligation,  resting  on  such 
an  individual,  to  break  up  all  his  social  relations — 
to  go  into  the  wide  world,  and  seek  companions 
wherever  he  may  find  them? 

The  ^ ^Remarks"  were  explicitly  directed  against 
creeds,  as  asserting  authority — as  tests,  whereby 
men's  claims  to  evangelical  privileges  are  to  be  de- 
termined— as  rules,  by  which  faith  and  practice  are 
to  be  tried.     That  this  is  the  use  to  which  they  are 


3f3 

put,  eveiy  ecclesiastical  movement  of  church  courts 
most  abundantly  demonstrates.      Dr.  M.  calls  them 
tests,   and  ardently  pleads  for  them,  in  that  form; 
and  so  far  as  he  adopts  this  view,  the  ^^Remarks" 
were  directly  opposed  to  his  principles.   The  ground 
occupied,    was    precisely  that  which    he    took    in 
his  controversy  with  episcopalians,  when  he  said — 
'*But  although  my  opponents  discover  so  much  re- 
luctance to  be  judged  by  the  law  and  the   testi- 
mony, I  hope,  my  brethren,  we  shall  never  so  far 
forget  our  character  as  christians  and  protestants,  as 
to   suffer  our  faith  or  practice  to  be  tried  by  any 
OTHP,R  TKfiT.^^     That  is,  my  whole  argument  was 
employed   against  the  almost  universal  practice  of 
using  other  tests,  than  the  law  and  the  testimony. 
Did  I  then  misrepresent  Dr.  M's  doctrine  of  creeds.^ 
Or  when  he  calls  them  by  another  name,  and  speaks 
of  them   as   summaries  of  the  leading  doctrines  of 
the  gospel,  does  he,  even  in  his  '^Letter,"  disclaim 
the   use  of  them  as  tests?     And  if  not,  why  am  I 
thus  accused,  as  though  I  were  beating  the  air.^ 

Dr.  M.  moreover  says,  that  ^^after  the  most  ample 
explanation  and  assurance  has  been  given  to  the 
contrary,^^  I  still  insist  on  representing  his  doctrine 
of  creeds,  ^^as  placing  them  above  the  Bible." 
Now  I  do  most  certainly  know,  that  my  brethren 
will  unequivocally  declare,  that  they  do  not  make 
their  creeds  equal  to  the  word  of  God.  I  have 
charged  them  with  no  criminal  intentions;  but  do 
believe  them  to  be  perfectly  honest  in  the  declara- 
tion^  and  in  the  *  ^Remarks''  I  had  gone  so  far  as^ 


34 

to  say,  ^'vve  know  full  well,  that  no  protestanl  will 
dare  to  represent  them  (creeds)  as  paramount"  to 
the  scriptures.  Who  douhts  this?  So  Calvin  says, 
that  **the  schools  acknowledged  the  conscience  of 
man  to  be  superior  to  all  human  judgments:"  but 
then  he  adds,  *Svhat  they  confessed  in  one  word, 
they  afterwards  overturned  in  fact."  In  like 
manner  these  brethren  act.  After  they  announce 
their  opinions  concerning  the  unrivalled  excellence 
of  the  holy  scriptures,  they  turn  round  and  make 
their  creed  the  rule  of  admission  into  ministerial 
privileges.  After  they  have  declared  the  sufficien- 
cy of  the  Bible,  they,  in  almost  the  same  breathy 
assert  that  with  the  Bible  alone  the  church  cannot 
live.  After  they  have  ascertained  that  men  have 
common  principles  with  them, — something  very 
far  beyond  a  laconic  declaration  of  their  general 
belief  in  the  Bible — they  immediately  refuse  com- 
munion with  them,  unless  they  consent  to  receive 
iheir'creed.  Now,  if  the  church  cannot  live  simply 
with  her  Bible,  but  may  flourish  with  her  creed — 
if  the  Bible  affords  no  effectual  guard  against  the 
inroads  of  heresy,  while  a  creed  does — if  the  privile- 
ges of  the  ministry  are  to  be  determined,  not  by  the 
Bible,  but  by  a  creed, — then  is  not  the  on^  practi- 
cally put  into  the  place  of  the  other?  Is  not  one 
practically  better  than  the  other,  insomuch  as  it 
does  what  the  other  cannot  do?  In  short,  is  it  not 
the  supposed  practical  usefulness  of  creeds,  which 
has  obtained  for  them  all  the  laboured  eulogy  they 
have  received? — I  can  assure  Dr.  M.  that  there  are 


35 

more  than  frightful  spectres  flitting  before  a  man, 
when  a  church  court  undertakes  to  censure,  to  con- 
demn, and  to  eject  him,  because  he  has  declared 
that  his  conscience  is  not  amenable  to  their  authori- 
ty. And  while  facts  are  so  glaring,  it  is  in  vain  to 
say,  that  these  ecclesiastical  tests  are  of  secondary 
iipportance;  or,  that  in  being  rules  of  ecclesiastical 
proceedings,  when  men's  doctrines  and  morality 
are  to  be  tried,  they  yet  are  not  rules  of  faith  and 
practice:  or  still  farther,  that,  when  both  doctrines 
and  morality  remain  unsuspected  in  making  the 
Bible  a  test,  they  still  are  sufficient  to  utter  a  judi- 
cial sentence, — they  are  not  practically  made  par a^ 
mount  to  the  word  of  God. 

SECTION  III. 

,  Dr.  M's  third  charge  against  the  ''Remarks''  is, 
that  the  ''principal  conclusions  are  not  only  as  per- 
fectly illogical  as  they  can  possibly  be,  but,  so  far 
as  they  go,  theTj  prove  by  far  too  much''  for  my- 
self. Under  such  circumstances,  any  writer  would 
be  truly  unfortunate;  and  ought  to  feel  himself 
really  foiled  by  his  adversary,  if  the  charge  can  be 
substantiated.  How  does  Dr.  M.  establish  his 
assertion? 

In  my  argument,  he  supposes  me  to  reason,— I 
must  state  the  doctrine  of  the  "Remarks"  as  I 
intended  it,  because  Dr.  M.  most  certainly  uses 
words  to  suit  himself,— that  if  the  Bible  be  the  only 
rule  of  faith  and  practice,  then  it  clearly  follows,- 


36 

that  when  the  church  forms  an  authoritative  creed 
or  confession,  and  presents  it  to  a  candidate  for  the 
ministry  for  adoption,  she  commits  sin;  for  she  at- 
tempts to  add  something  to  Ood's  own  rule.  His 
remark  on  this  argument  is,  that  it  would  equally 
prove  all  preaching  to  be  sinful,  and  every  com- 
mentary on  the  Bible  to  be  a  monument  of  rebel- 
lion against  God;  in  short,  "that  every  attempt,  on 
the  part  of  ministers  or  others,  in  whatever  form, 
to  illustrate,  explain,  and  apply  the  truths  of 
scripture,  is  a  presumptuous  interference  with  the 
authority  of  God  over  the  conscience!" — These  are 
very  serious  '^conclusions;"  and  well  may  Dr.  M. 
ask  his  correspondent,  whether  we  are  prepared  for 
them? 

For  one,  I  am  ready  to  say,  that  I  am  very  far 
from  being  prepared  for  them;  and  Dr.  M.  very 
fairly  intimates  that  he  knows  I  would  shrink  from 
them.  My  idea,  however,  is,  that  these  conclu- 
sions do  not  follow  from  the  doctrine  of  the  '*Re- 
marks;"  and  I  suppose,  that  in  making  them  out  in 
the  ' 'Letter,"  the  writer  has  felt  his  ingenuity 
fairly  taxed.  He  has  anticipated  objections,  and 
thus  put  his  reader  in  the  possession  of  principles, 
which  refute  his  charge  in  the  most  demonstrable 
form;  and  that  too,  when  they  are  in  his  own  hands. 
I  must,  however,  discuss  these  principles,  briefly, 
for  myself. 

1.  Is  an  ecclesiastical  creed,  a  mere  explanatory 
document?  Does  not  every  christian  know  the 
difierence  between  the  creed  of  any  denomination. 


37 

and  the  sayings  of  any  of  its  ministers  or  commen- 
tators? If  a  creed  be  a  mere  matter  of  explanation, 
then  it  has  been  conceded,  that  a  church  court  may 
make  an  annual  creed,  if  it  pleases,  and  on  its  own 
responsibilities;  provided  that,  when  made,  it  is 
not  imposed  upon  others,  or  used  as  a  term  of  com- 
munion in  religious  ordinances.  But  is  this  the 
fact?  What  hosts  of  ministers  have  passed  away 
to  tlieir  last  account,  since  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly met!  How  commentators  have  been  multi- 
plied— falling  or  rising  according  as  public  opinion 
may  have  sanctioned  or  condemned  them!  But 
their  creed — it  would  well  nigh  break  all  the  pres- 
byterian  churches  to  pieces,  to  part  with  it!  Sure- 
ly then  Dr.  M.  will  not  tell  me,  that  all  these 
different  matters  are  one  and  the  same  thing;  be- 
cause he  knows  better. — What  an  immense  differ- 
ence between  the  occasional  declaration,  or  passing 
sentence,  of  a  minister  of  the  gospel,  and  a  perma- 
nent, accredited  document!  The  one  is  not 
remembered  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  though  its 
savoury  impression  may  remain  through  eternit}^; — 
the  very  fact  that  it  is  nuncupative^  leaves  to  the 
divine  spirit,  who  searches  all  these  deep  spiritual 
things,  to  employ  the  moral  essence  of  a  truth, 
which  has  been  encompassed  by  human  infirmities, 
while  the  mistakes  of  words  and  phrases  are  entirely 
forgotten.  The  other  is  a  manual,  designed  for 
common  use,  perpetuating  its  abstract  propositions, 
and  clustering  around  it  the  best  affections  and  the 
strongest  feelings  of  human  beings.  Often  have  I 
4 


3S 

heard  a  talc  of  personal  experience,  traced  up  to  a 
sermon,  whose  words  were  all  forgotten,  or  to  an 
ordinance,  made  more  spiritual  by  an  ^^expressivc 
silence."  But  with  ten-fold  frequency  have  I 
heard  angry  and  protracted  debates  about  the  strong 
and  forbidding  phrases  of  a  catechism  or  confession 
of  faith.  And  is  there  no  difference?  Or  will  Dr. 
M.  tell  me  that,  in  condemning  a  sectarian  institu- 
tion of  bad  tendency,  my  reasoning  equally  rejects 
a  moral  one,  under  the  immediate  care  of  the  Spirit 
of  God?  Will  he  tell  me  that  an  abstruse  compend, 
exhibiting  philosophical  speculations  far  beyond  the 
reach  of  ordinary  mortals,  is  equal  to  that  provi* 
dential  superintendence  which  scatters  a  multitude 
of  mercies  over  all  God's  works, — makes  his  sun  to 
shine  upon  the  evil  and  upon  the  good,  and  sends 
his  rain  upon  the  just  and  the  unjust?  Can  an 
ecclesiastical  creed  be  compared  with  the  ministe- 
rial institution  for  one  moment,  either  in  respect  of 
its  good,  or  of  its  bad  qualities?  .  The  mistakes  of 
the  apostles  themselves  are  long  since  forgotten, 
and  their  sermons  exist  no  more,  but  in  the  hearts 
of  beings  passed  either  to  heaven  or  to  hell,  or  in 
the  records  of  the  Judge  of  all  the  ,  earth.  You 
might  almost  as  well  re-inter  the  body  of  Moses,  and 
w^rest  it  from  an  angel's  grasp,  or  confound  us  with 
a  piece  of  the  Redeemer's  cross — a  nail  that  pierced 
his  blessed  feet — as  to  give  us  an  abstract  of  an 
apostle's  sermon.  Their  su7nnia?ucSy  framed  un- 
der the  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  during  the 
hour  they  spoke,  have  all  been  forgotten;  but  their 


39 

I      '     '      '   ' 


inspired  epistles  gather  fresh  laurels  in  this  lately 
discovered  land,  and  are  now  borne  on  Angelic 
wing  to  earth's  remotest  bound,  and  darkest  cor- 
ner.— And  is  there  no  difference?  Are  ministerial 
sermons  and  permanent  documents  correlative  mat- 
ters?    No,  verily,  no. 

The  great  objection  against  ecclesiastical  creeds, 
was,  that  they  formed  authoritative  rules,  and  are 
practically  used  in  that  way.      If,   knowing  that  a 
civil   constitution  has  made  the  legislative  and  ex- 
ecutive powers  distinct  branches  of  government,  I 
should  argue  that  the  executive  officers  had  no  right 
to   make  laws;  would  it  thereby   be  inferred,  that 
professional  counsel,  which  society  recognises  and 
the  law  allows,  is  equally  inadmissible,  or  that  trea- 
tises on  law  would  be  rebellion  against  the  legisla- 
tive   power?     Certainly   not.     But  if    a    class    of 
civilians,  should  so  far  contravene  the  principles  of 
the  constitution,  as  to  resolve  themselves  into  a  co- 
ordinate branch  of   legislators,  then   the  supposed 
inference  could  not  only  not  be  evaded,  but  it  ought 
most   freely   to   be  admitted.      In   like   manner,    if 
ministers,  stepping  from  their  pulpits,  where  they 
might  have  poured  in  full  stream  their  most  gener- 
ous feelings  around  the  altar  of  the  church's  service, 
should  enter  a  church  court,  and  undertake  to  ex- 
ercise legislative  power,  after  God  has  given  us  his 
Bible    as   the  only  rule,  then   Dr.    M's  inference 
would  fairly  be  applied.      In  truth,  this  is  the  very 
thing  against  which  we  inveig'h.      Ministers,  erect- 
ing themselves  into  ^V.ourts  of  Review  and  Con- 


40 

//o/,"  as  Dr.  M.  himself  says,  do  use  a  power, 
which  the  Bible,  as  the  great  constitution  of  the 
ohurch,  has  not  entrusted  to  them.  Nay  more,  as 
ihis  power  has  very  frequently  been  usurped  before 
tlie  canon  of  scripture  was  closed,  and  as  inspired 
Fuen  foresaw  that  it  would  be  usurped  afterwards, 
<*xpress  provision  has  been  made  against  it  in  the 
scriptures  themselves. — This  being  the  doctrine  of 
the  * 'Remarks/'  Dr.  JVPs  reasoning  is  wholly  in- 
conclusive. 

In  relation  to  * 'commentaries  on  the  Bible,"  his 
argument  is,  if  possible,  still  more  defective.  They 
may  not  be  altogether  harmless,  and  the  church, 
upon  the  whole,  might  do  as  well,  if  not  better, 
without  than  with  them.  For  the  most  part  they 
manifest  very  little  intellectual  independence,  and 
are  the  depositories  of  the  dogmas  and  notions  of 
tlie  day  in  vv^hich  they  were  written.  But  still,  no 
man  is  obliged  to  own  or  read  them;  no  church 
court  will  try  heresy  or  immorality  by  their  inter- 
pretations; there  is  no  difficulty  in  exchanging 
them,  and  no  censure  implied  in  rejecting  them^ 
But  what  of  ecclesiastical  creeds?  Are  they  thus 
lightly  esteemed?  Do  christians  consider  them  as 
mere  commentaries?  Would  Dr.  M.  listen  for  a 
moment  to  any  overture,  which  would  propose  so  to 
treat  them? — Let  men  write  as  many  creeds  as  they 
please,  and  publish  them  as  often  as  they  please, 
But  let  it  be  done  on  their  own  responsibility,  and 
let  ministers  and  christians  read  them  or  not,  at 
their  own  option.     On  these  terms  our  controversy 


41 

would  soon  be  over. —Dr.  M's  third  charge  there- 
fore is  wholly  unfounded. 

2.   I  reply  to  this  charge,  by  saying  that  preach- 
ing is  a  divine  ordinance;  and  if  Dr.  M.  can  say  as 
much  for  ecclesiastical  creeds,  I  yield  the  dispute. 
And  certainly  he  has  been  often  enough  called  upon 
to  do  it.     But  how  can  the  doctrine,  that  the  Bible 
is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  lead  to  the 
destruction  of  the  ministerial  office,  when  this  only 
rule  creates  that  office?    In  sustaining  the  one,  I  am 
executing  the  other.      So  that  the  fair  conclusion  is 
directly  the  reverse  of  that  drawn  by  Dr.  M.     This 
charge  has  been  often  made  before,  and  it  was  dis- 
tinctly taken  up  in  the  < 'Remarks;"  where  the  mi- 
nistry was  represented,  not  merely  as  a  divine  ordi- 
nance, but  as  a  favourite  institution,  which  Jehovah 
proffered  to  take  under  his  own  habitual  inspection. 
<*We  have  this  treasure  in  earthen  vessels,  that  the 
excellency  of  the  power  may  be  of  God  and  not  of 
us.^^     That  is,  God  would  consecrate  ministers  as 
his  own  immediate   agents:  he  would  supply  them 
with  every  needful   grace;  and   give  them  an  ''in- 
crease''  in  the  end.      The  living  teacher,  thus  quali- 
fied, goes  forth  under  those  same  provisions  of  mer- 
cy, which  guaranty  the  moral  consequences  of  the 
Bible  itself;  and  the  special  charge  given  to  him,  in 
order  that  he  may  obtain  the  increase,  is  not  to  as- 
pire after   dominion.      < 'Whosoever  will   be  great 
among  you,"  said  the  Master  to  his  disciples,  ''let 
him  be  your  minister;  and' whosoever  will  be  chief 
among  you,  let  him  be  youT  servant. "     How  then 
4* 


42 

<ioes  the  position,  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  rule  of 
i'aith  and  practice,  lead  to  the  abolition  of  the  minis- 
ferial  office,  when  those,  who  -are  inducted  into  it, 
are  prohibited  from  making  any  other  rule?  The 
scriptures  themselves,  which  we  may  not  suspect  of 
any  inconsistency,  have  put  the  two  things  together. 
They  declare  their  own  perfection  and  consistency, 
and  then  create  the  office,  under  the  limitation  which 
such  a  view  of  their  character  supposes.  So  that  Dr. 
M's  criticism  w^ould  reach  a  little  higher  than  he 
wishes — his  argument  proves  too  much. 

But  suppose  some  inconsistency  did  exist.  Is  it  an 
uncommon  thing  that  one  general  principle  should 
limit  another,  or  that  an  exception  should  be  admit- 
ted under  a  general  rule?  Must  v/e  laugh  at  every 
intermediate  rest  between  two  extremes?  Are  cir- 
cumstances unworthy  of  being  considered,  when  a 
lawgiver  would  enact  laws?  Or  would  Dr.  M. 
from  the  fact  that  the  ministerial  institution  has  been 
created,  infer  that  it  must  have  a  legislative  charac- 
ter? Does  not  his  own  confession  declare  the  Bible  to 
be  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  manners,  and  will  he  in- 
fer from  that  the  destruction  of  the  ministerial  office? 
Or  how  will  he  escape  the  same  conclusion  from  hig 
own  definition,  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  infaUihlc 
rule?  Will  not  a  fallible  rule  be  as  inconsistent  with  an 
infallible  one,  as  any  secondary  agency  may  be  with 
an  only  rule?  In  short — even  if  his  reasoning  were 
logical,  would  I  be  irreverent  in  saying  along  with 
Moses, — "Would  God  that  all  the  Lord's  people 
v/ere  prophets,  and  that  the  Lord  would  put  his  spv 


43 

rit  upon  them:'*  or  in  supposing,  that  finding  a  ne- 
cessity, from  the  nature  of  the  case,  to  form  a  se- 
condary institution,  he  has  carried  this  delicate 
matter  of  legislation  as  far  as  it  ought  to  be  carried? 
I  do  not  see  the  justness  of  Dr.  M's  observations  on 
this  subject,  in  any  view  that  can  be  taken  of  them. 

Dr.  M.  after  having  admitted  that  preaching  is 
called  for  by  a  divine  ordinance,  immediately  asks — 
*'And  have  we  not  an  equally  clear  and  unquestiona- 
ble divine  warrant  for  taking  effectual  care,  that 
those  who  are  candidates  for  the  important  offices  of 
teachers,  guides  and  rulers  in  the  churcfh;  who  are 
to  dispense  ^the  word  of  life,'  and  to  separate  be- 
tween the  precious  and  the  vile;  do  really  under- 
stand and  embrace  the  Hruth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,'  that 
they  will  not  teach  for  doctrines  the  commandments 
of  men;  and  for  this  purpose  to  receive  their  assent, 
in  some  form  or  another,  to  all  the  leading  doctrines 
of  the  Bible?"  The  reader  may  see  the  reasoning 
more  at  length  by  consulting  the  "^^Letter"  itself. 

Does  Dr.  M.  mean  to  say  that  we  have  a  divine 
ivarrant  for  dividing  the  church  into  voluntary  as- 
sociations^ and  to  authorize  each  party  to  frame  its 
own  rules  or  laws,  by  which  to  judge  of  the  preten- 
sions of  a  candidate  for  the  ministiy?  If  he  does 
not,  then  the  divine  warrant  he  pleads  does  not  co- 
ver the  subject  on  which  he  writes:  and  of  course 
his  argument  fails  to  accomplish  his  object.  The 
remark  will  be  found  frequently  in  the  course  of 
these  observations, — and  there  is  a  glaring  necessity 
for  its  repetition — that  Dr.  M's  reasonings  rest  up- 


44 

on  the  assumption,  that  we  have  a  right  to  constrr.cl 
the  church  in  the  form  of  voluntary  associations. — 
But  this  is  not  granted;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  most 
explicitly  denied.  Establish  this,  and  the  favou- 
rite conclusions,  on  which  the  *  ^Letter"  insists, 
may  follow;  but  without  it  they  cannot  be  sustain- 
ed, because  the  premises  are  incorrect 

Dr.  M.  has  not  given  one  single  train  of  reason- 
ing, which  his  readers  could  feel  to  be  scriptural. 
That  his  views  are  political,  or  meet  the  state  of 
religious  society,  certain  things  being  granted,  is 
abundantly:;  evident.  If  this  be  all  that  is  necessary 
on  a  subject  of  such  high,  and  commanding  moral 
importance,  I  might  pause;  because  I  need  no  in- 
struction in  order  to  see  the  whole  argument.  But 
if  scriptural  law  is  to  decide  the  controversy,  and 
moral  principles  are  preferable  to  sectarian  provi- 
sions, then  I  cannot  consent,  for  an  instant,  to  his 
doctrine.  Let  him  change  his  course,  and  take  this 
ground;  for  if  his  principles  be,  by  one  tenth  part, 
as  important  as  they  are  represented  to  be,  it  is  im- 
possible that  the  scriptures  should  have  left  them  un- 
noticed: nay  impossible  that  they  should  not  have 
fully  disclosed  the  whole  system.  If  this  cannot 
be  done,  that  simple  circumstance  shakes  the  sys- 
tem to  its  centre.  And  if  Dr.  M.  should  ever  re- 
sume his  pen  in  this  controversy,  I  hope  he  will 
take  up  the  subject  in  this  form,  and  demonstrate 
his  positions,  as  though  he  was  benevolently  rea- 
soning for  the  good  of  human  beings,  who,  though 


45 

they  cannot  yield  to  his^  creed,  will  bow  to  scriptu- 
ral authority  with  the  utmost  cheerfulness. 

When  Dr.  M.  makes  use  of  such  scriptural  phra- 
ses as  these — ^Hruth  as  it  is  in  Jesus'' — *^sound  in 
the  faith" — *Heach  for  doctrines  the  commandments 
of  men,"  he  must  remember,  that  though  they  may 
be  uttered  in  dulcet  tones  to  a  pious  ear,  yet  among 
sectarians,  ail  parties  may  use  them  with  equal  free- 
dom, and  with  equal  impropriety.  They  refer  to 
the  most  desirable  objects;  but  the  question  is  how 
may  all  these  things  be  determined,  particularly  un- 
der an  evangelical  law,  which  is  defined  as  a  "per- 
fect law  of  liberty?"  For  example,  I  think,  and  I 
believe  most  correctly  too,  that  the  creed  system 
inculcates  "for  doctrines  the  commandments  of 
jnen:" — if  a  number  of  individuals  combine  toge- 
ther, call  themselves  a  church  court,  and  put  me 
down,  it  does  not  follow  that  /  am  fairly  condemn- 
ed, as  "teaching  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of 
men. "  And  yet  this  is  the  precise  import  of  a  creed. 
If  I  am  as  correct  as  they  are,  and  more  so,  as  I  take 
myself  to  be,  how  is  the  scriptural  object  secured? — 
In  like  manner,  soundness  in  the  faith,  means, 
among  sectarians,  correspondence  with  their  creed. 
But  then  it  is  abundantly  evident,  that  parties,  which 
are  thus  contending,  may  be  equally  "received  by 
God;"  nor  only  so,  but  if  theoretic  opinions  were 
not  so  strongly  insisted  upon,  and  the  fruits  of  righ- 
teousness, by  which,  the  Redeemer  says,  his  people 
are  to  be  known,  were  more  considered,  there  would 
Ise  a  corresponding  judgment  on  the  part  of  men. 


46 

For  certain  it  is,  that  the  different  sects  admit  each 
other  to  be  christians,  and  each  other's  ministers  to 
he  servants  of  Christ,  while  their  respective  creeds 
form  impassible  barriers  to  their  mutual  fellowship. 
Define  the  scriptural  objects  clearly,  and  then  let  it 
be  answered,  whether  they  may  not  be  acquired 
without  these  voluntary  associations,  and  sectarian 
formularies?  This  subject  I  will  refer  to  a  distinct 
section. 

SECTION  IV. 

Dr.  M.  has  ascribed  to  creeds  certain  '^important 
ends,"  which,  he  says,  cannot  possibly  be  obtained 
without  them.  In  illustration  of  this  position,  he 
asks,  **how  the  church  can  take  effectual  measures 
to  exclude  Pelagians,  Semi-Pelagians,  Swedenbor- 
gians,  Universalists,  Arians  and  Socinians  from  her 
ministry,  without  the  use  of  creeds  and  confessions 
in  some  form?"  *^Here,"  he  declares,  speaking  of 
my  ^'Remarks,"  ^^here  his  doctrine  labours  most 
deeply  and  fatally.  Until  he  shall  relieve  it  from 
this  difficulty,  he  will  have  accomplished  nothing. 
It  is  a  mill-stone  about  the  neck  of  his  cause,  which, 
unless  detached,  must  sink  it  irrecoverably." — 
Though  I  am  very  far  from  supposing  this  to  be  the 
most  important  part  of  the  controversy,  yet,  as  Dr. 
M.  is  pleased  so  to  represent  it,  and  as  it  is  one  of 
the  most  common  topics  of  argument  on  his  side  of 
the  question,  it  would  be  a  serious  omission  not  to 
give  it  a  distinct  consideration,  in  a  reply  to  his  "Let- 


47 

ter. ''  This  is  undertaken;  not  without  a  hope  of  suc- 
cessfully parrying  the  blow,  which  he  imagines  to 
be  fatal  to  my  cause;  and  with  some  degree  of  con- 
fidence, that  the  argument  will  not  **miss  the  point," 
which  is  so  omnipotently  destructive. 

To  present  the  subject  in  its  full  force  to  the  rea- 
der, I  must  refer  to  a  case,  on  wliich  Dr.  M.  him- 
self dwells  with  considerable  fondness; — the  case  of 
Arius  before  the  council  of  Nice.  ^'We  can  scarce- 
ly conceive,"  says  Dr.  M.  ^^of  a  more  striking  ex- 
emplification of  the  real  importance  of  this  point, 
than  that  which  is  furnished  by  the  proceedings  of 
the  council  of  Nice,  in  the  fourth  century,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  heresy  of  Arius."  In  reference  to  this, 
he  asks,  ^'what  would  Mr.  D.  have  done,  with  his 
doctrine,  had  he  been  a  member  of  the  council  of 
Nice? — ^Had  he  been  there,  he  would,  no  doubt, 
have  done — just  nothing."  This  seems  to  bring 
the  matter  close  home,  and  affords  to  the  author  of 
the  Letter  a  fine  opportunity  of  awakening  all  the 
suspicions  of  the  community  against  his  opponent, 
an  opportunity  which  he  does  not  fail  to  improve 
with  his  utmost  skill,  by  tlirowing  out  a  variety  of 
hints,  which  are  either  unintelligible  or  unkind. 

When  asked,  what  course  I  would  have  pursued, 
had  I  been  a  member  of  the  council  of  Nice,  I  confess 
there  is  considerable  ditBculty  in  framing  an  answer. 
You  might  almost  as  well  '^draw  a  diameter  through 
the  periphery  of  the  divine  plan,  and  ask  me  how 
God  should  make  a  world  out  of  the  other  half.  I 
answer,  I  do  not  know."     The  human  mind,  it  is 


48 

presumed,  always  derives  its  own  peculiarity  of 
character  from  the  combination  of  circumstances  un- 
der which  it  is  developed.  How  my  mind  might 
have  been  affected  in  that  age,  when  a  synodical 
test  of  orthodoxy  was  for  the  first  time  formed,  and 
when  the  church  deserted  her  Master's  providence, 
to  shelter  herself  under  the  patronage  of  an  earthly 
jprince,  I  cannot  tell.  What  would  Dr.  M.  with 
his  doctrine, — unfavourable,  it  is  supposed,  to  an 
union  between  the  church  and  the  state, — have  done, 
when  Constantine  appeared  to  settle  religious  dis- 
putes by  the  potency  of  the  civil  arm?  Just  nothing? 
Or  would  he  have  persevered  ill  making  the  creed, 
and  then  humbly  craved  the  royal  signature? 

Some  men  always  go  with  the  majority.  The 
sword  is  often  a  powerful  argument,  and  I  can  as- 
sert nothing  for  my  own  courage,  further  than  as  it 
has  been  tried.  I  might  then  have  been  on  the  side 
of  the  council,  and  perhaps  have  approved  of  Arius* 
being  sent  into  exile  without  a  tear.  But  if  this 
question  is  to  form  a  sort  of  test  for  my  doctrine,  as 
held  in  the  present  age,  w^here  men  may  think  for 
themselves;  and  under  a  government,  which  though 
**^rich  in  woods,  and  groves,  and  coppices,"  yet  *  ^re- 
fuses to  spare  a  single  faggot  for  an  auto  de/e,^^ 
then,  I  reply,  that  I  must  be  an  opponent  of  the  mea- 
sures of  that  unwise  and  slavish  assembly.  And, 
though  Dr.  M.  with  all  his  unfriendly  hints,  and 
the  synod  of  Philadelphia,  with  all  their  exuberant 
zeal,  cannot  fasten  dow^n  upon  me  tlie  charge  of 
Arianism,  yet,  in  all  probability,  I  should  have  been 


49 

banished  with  the  heretic  into  lUyricum.  I  judge 
this  latter  consequence  must  have  followed,  from  the 
inseparable  connexion  which  my  opponents  suppose 
to  exist  between  Arianism  and  the  denial  of  the  au- 
thority, or  usefulness,  of  human  creeds;  from  the 
conduct  of  the  synod,  which  tried  every  practicable 
expedient  to  banish  me  from  the  heritage  the  Lord 
had  given  me;  and  from  the  many  invitations  1  had 
received  to  leave  the  communion  of  presbyterians: — 
The  ivhole  world,  says  Dr.  M.  is  before  you. 

My  doctrine  would  have  compelled  me  to  have 
protested  against  the  authority  of  the  council,  as  a 
mere  human  contrivance;  and  as  having  no  divine 
warrant,  nor  justifiable  plea,  to  take  cognizance  in 
the  case.  I  should  have  objected  to  the  interference 
of  the  temporal  prince  in  spiritual  matters,  as  the 
great  Head  of  the  church  had  never  committed  them 
to  his  political  management,  nor  in  any  sense  con- 
secrated him  as  an  evangelical  officer.  I  should  have 
urged  the  utter  incompetency  of  the  imperial  man- 
date to  restore  peace  to  the  church;  or  indeed,  to 
do  any  thing  else  but  spoil  the  beauty  of  the  whole 
evangelical  association,  and  defeat  '^the  important 
ends"  for  which  the  church  has  been  instituted.  I 
should  have  inveighed  against  the  artifice  of  making 
an  authoritative  creed,  inasmuch  as,  if  a  man  cannot 
be  condemned  by  the  scriptures,  he  is  not  to  be  con- 
demned at  all.  A  judicial  sentence  must  rest  on 
testimony,  clear  and  unequivocal — ' 'Against  an 
Elder,"  saith  the  word  of  God,  ' 'receive  not  an  ac- 
cusation, but  at  the  mouth  of  two  or  three  witnesses.'' 
5 


30 

And  finally,  taking  advantage  of  subsequent  history, 
the  knowledge  of  which  the  question  supposes  me 
to  have  possessed,  I  should  have,  with  prophetic 
voice,  forewarned  the  council,  that  they  were  giv- 
ing form  and  size  to  a  controversy,  which  should  last 
until  the  Millennium  should  come  round.  Would 
I  have  been  wrong  in  any  of  these  views? 

To  illustrate  my  meaning  a  little  farther,  I  will 
ask  the  privilege  of  relating  an  interesting  story, 
whose  circumstances  are  connected  with  the  history 
of  the  council  of  Nice.  The  reader  may  find  it  in 
Cave's  life  of  Athanasius,  or  in  Milner's  church  his- 
tory. '*The  bishops,  before  they  formally  met  in 
the  solemn  council,  spent  some  days  in  preliminary 
discourses  and  disputations;  wherein  they  were  at- 
tacked by  certain  philosophers;  men  versed  in  sub- 
tilties,  and  the  arts  of  reasoning,  whom  either  curi- 
osity had  drawn  thither,  or,  as  some  suspect,  Arius 
had  brought  along  with  him  to  plead  his  cause,  and 
to  retard  and  entangle  the  proceedings  of  the  synod. 
One  of  which,  priding  himself  in  the  neatness  and 
elegancy  of  his  discourses,  reflected  with  scorn  upon 
the  fathers  of  the  council.  A  piece  of  insolence  so 
intolerable,  that  an  ancient  confessor,  then  in  the 
company,  a  man  plain,  and  unskilled  in  the  tricks 
and  methods  of  disputing,  not  being  able  to  bear  it, 
offered  himself  to  undertake  him.  For  which  he 
was  laughed  at  by  some;  while  others,  more  modest 
and  serious,  feared  what  would  be  the  success  of  his 
entering  the  lists  with  so  able  and  famed  a  disputant. 
The  good  man,  however,  went  on  with  his  resolu- 


51 

tion,  and  bluntly  accosted  his  adversary  in  this  man- 
ner. *In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  philosopher,  give 
ear.  There  is  one  God,  maker  of  heaven  and  earth, 
and  of  all  things  visible  and  invisible,  who  created 
all  these  things  by  the  power  of  his  word,  and  rati- 
fies them  by  the  sanctity  of  his  Holy  Spirit.  This 
word,  v/hich  we  call  the  Son  of  God,  pitying  the 
apostacy  and  brutish  state  of  mankind,  condescend- 
ed  to  be  born  of  a  woman,  to  dwell  amongst  men, 
and  to  die  for  them;  who  shall  come  again,  to  sit  as 
judge  upon  whatever  we  do  in  this  life.  These 
things  we  plainly  believe.  Strive  not,  therefore, 
to  no  purpose,  to  endeavour  the  confutation  of  what 
we  entertain  by  faith,  or  to  find  out  how  these  things 
"may,  or  may  not  he;  but  answer  me  if  thou  dost 
believe.^'  The  philosopher,  astonished  and  thunder- 
struck with  the  zeal  and  plainness  of  the  old  man^s 
discourse,  answered  that  he  did  believe,  and  thank- 
ing that  conqueror  that  overcame  him,  yielded  up 
himself  to  his  sentiments  and  opinions,  jjersuading 
his  companions  to  do  the  like;  solemnly  affirming, 
that  it  was  by  an  unspeakable  power,  and  not  with- 
out immediate  direction  from  heaven,  that  he  was 
brought  over  to  be  a  christian. " 

Could  I  whisper  into  Dr.  M's  ear,  I  would  say— 
**My  brother,  such  are  the  consequences  to  which 
my  doctrine  Jeads.  A  doctrine,  for  which  you  ven- 
ture to  consider  me  as  delirious,  and  on  whose  ac- 
count your  presbyteries  and  synods  have  treated  me 
as  an  alien  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel.  A 
doctrine,   which   rather  covets  the   conversion   of 


52 

sinners,  than  harshly  casts  out  christians  from  the 
communion  of  saints.  A  doctrine,  which  solicits 
divine  power  as  its  aid,  rather  than  the  subtilties  of 
scholastic  theology,  or  the  ingenious  schemes  of  ec- 
clesiastical rulers."  0,  that  our  old  men  and  minis- 
ters, w^ere  like  this  ancient  confessor,  and  that  they 
would  go  forth  with  the  Bible  in  their  hands,  pray- 
ing that  their  preaching  might  be  the  wisdom  of. 
God,  and  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation! 

Shortl}^  after,  and  in  that  very  council,  where  thi^ 
old  man  spoke  with  such  divine  eloquence,  a  creed 
was  made.  What  did  it  effect?  Was  Arius  con- 
verted, convinced,  or  silenced?  Very  far  from  it. 
Contentions  abounded,  angry  debates  were  protrac- 
ted, and  Arius  was  banished.  A  little  while  after 
Arius  was  recalled,  and  subscribed  the  creed,  re- 
maining still  unchanged  in  his  heretical  sentiments  j 
so  that  this  * 'important  end,"  of  excluding  Arius 
from  the  ministry,  was  not  secured  even  by  a  creed. 

Nor  did  many  years  roll  by,  until  a  bishop  of 
.Rome  was  guilty  of  an  equally  disgraceful  manoeu- 
vre. Pope  Liberius,  **about  the  middle  of  the  fourth 
century,  when  the  Arian  controversy  was  at  its 
height,  intimidated  by  the  power  of  the  reigning 
emperor  Constantius,  whom  he  knew  to  be  a  zea- 
lous disciple  of  Arius,  declared  publickly  in  favour 
of  that  party,  and  excommiinicated  t/ithaiiasius, 
whom  all  the  orthodox  regarded  as  the  patron  and 
defender  of  the  catholic  cause.  This  sentence  he 
soon  after  revoked,  and  after  revoking  it,  his  le- 
gates, at  the  council  of  Aries,  overawed  by  the  em* 


03 

peror,  concurred  with  the  rest  in   signing  the  con- 
demnation of  Athanasius,  yielding,  as  they  expres- 
sed it,  to  the  troublesome  times.     Afterwards,  in- 
deed, Liberius  was  so  far  a  confessor  in  the  cause  of 
orthodoxy,  that  he-  underwent  a  long  and  severe 
banishment,  rather  than  lend   his  aid   and  counte- 
nance to  the  measures,  which  the  emperor  pursued 
for  establishing  *^rianism  throughout  the  em,pire. 
But  however  firm  and  undaunted  the  pope  appeared 
for  a  time,  he  had  not  the  magnanimity  to  persevere, 
but  was  at  length,  in  order  to  recover  his  freedom, 
his  country,  and   his  bishoprick,  induced  to  retract 
his  retraction,  to  sign  a  second  time  the  condem- 
nation of  Athanasius,  and  to  embrace  the  %firian 
sym,bol  (creed)    of  Sirmium.     Not  satisfied   with 
this,  he  even  wrote  to  the  Arian  bishops  of  the  east, 
excusing  his  former  defence  of  Athanasius;  imputing 
it  to  an  excessive  regard  for  the  sentiments  of  his 
predecessor  Julius;  and   declaring,  that  now,  since 
it  had  pleased  God  to  open  his  eyes,  and  show  him 
how  justly    the  heretic  Athanasius  had  been  con- 
demned, he  separated  himself  from  his  communion, 
and  cordially  joined  their  holinesses,  (so  he  styled 
the  Arian  bishops)  in  supporting  the  true  faith. 
Before  he   returned   from  exile,  meeting  with  the 
emperor,  who  was  by  this  time  turned  semiarian, 
the  pliant  pontiff,  impatient  to  be  again  in  posses- 
sion of  his  see,  was  induced  to  change  anew,  and 
subscribe  the  semiarian  confession.''^ — Will  Dr. 
M.  who  has  so  earnestly  arsked  me  what  I  would 
have  done,  with  my  doctrine,  as  a  member  of  the 
5* 


54 

council  of  Nice,  look  at  the  contrast,  and  candidly 
answer  to  himself,  who  ^ ^missed  the  point" — the 
ancient  confessor  or  the  creed-makers? 

Dr.  M.  must  now  listen  to  a  question  from  me, 
which  was  asked  in  the  ^'Remarks,"  and  which  he 
has  not  deigned  to  answer.    Admitting  that  he  may, 
by  his   creed,   exclude   Pelagians,   Semi-Pelagians, 
Sw^edenborgians,  Universalists,  Arians  and  Socinians 
from  the  ministry,  by   what  authority  does  he  ex- 
tend its  operation,  and  exclude  from  the  ministry, 
in  his  voluntary  association,  men  who  are  contami- 
nated by  none  of  these  heresies?  Men  against  whom 
he  has  not  a  word   to  say,  but  that  they  oppose  the 
exercise  of  human  authority  in  the  church,  and  are 
scrupulous  to  preserve  the  rights  of  the  human  con- 
science, and  the   supremacy  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as 
King  and  Head  of  his  church?     Will  he  permit  me 
respectfully   to   return   his    own    words  to   him: — 
*^^Why  this  almost  entire  silence  concerning  a  part 
of  the  argument,  which,  first  of  all,  and  above  all, 
demanded  his  whole    strength?    Not,  I  am  persua- 
ded, because  he  had  not  discernment  enough  to  see 
the  full  front  and  force  of  the  difficulty;  but  because 
he  had  nothing  to  say.      Here  his  doctrine  labours 
most  deeply  and  fatally.      Until   he   shall  relieve  it 
from  this  difficulty,  be  will  have  accomplished  no- 
thing.   It  is  a  millstone  about  the  neck  of  his  cause, 
which,  unless  detached,  must  sink  it  irrecoverably." 
I  make  not  this  quotation  in  the  spirit  of  retaliation. 
But  Dr.  JVPs  words  very  clearly  express  my  opi- 
nion in  relation  to  the  subject  to   which  they  are 


55 

applied;  and  in  using  them,  I  hoped  to  escape  the 
charge  of  ^^dogmatizing  with  peculiar  positiveness.'^ 
The  case  is  drawn  out  at  length  in  the  "Remarks/*^ 
and  not  one  explanatory  observation  is  made  to 
meet  it.  It  is  now  returned  with  deeper  feeling 
than  ever,  as  one  which  rises  with  ten-fold  impor- 
tance over  that  of  the  heresiarch,  condemned  by  the 
council  of  Nice. 

Still,  however,  the  question  remains  unanswered, 
it  may  be  said. — I  must  then  turn  to  show,  in  a 
more  systematical  and  formal  manner,  how  this  ' 'im- 
portant end"  of  securing  the  purity  of  the  church 
is  to  be  obtained,  without  imposing  a  human  creed 
as  a  test  of  orthodoxy.  An  attempt  to  do  this, 
will  lead  to  a  variety  of  observations;  some  of 
which  may,  perhaps,  incur  full  as  much  censure  as 
the  doctrine  they  are  designed  to  defend.  I  ask 
for  them  a  candid  consideration,  from  all  those  who 
propose  the  question  under  examination,  in  a  man- 
ner sincere  and  frank. 

1*  One  of  the  best  methods  of  ascertaining  how  a- 
difficulty  is  to  be  removed,  is  to  trace  it  to  its 
origin.  If  .the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to  it 
can  be  discovered  and  corrected,  the  remedy  is  at 
once  provided.  This  was  a  principal  object  in  the 
first  part  of  the  ' 'Remarks,"  which  Dr.  M.  has 
laboured  to  discard  as  a  piece  of  declamatory  writ- 
ing, or  inconsequential  reasoning.  But,  with  all 
due  deference  to  his  higher  pretensions,  it  is  a  much 
better  mode  of  discussing  so  interesting  a  subject, 
*PaKe  49—63. 


56 


than  dwelling  with  great  pertinacity  upon  minor 
details;  which  must  necessarily  be  entirely  altered, 
by  abandoning  the  false  principles  from  which  they 
proceed. 

The  present  difficulty,  the  existence  of  which  is 
considered  to  be  so  very  important  an  argument  in 
favour  of  the  creed  cause,  and  so  destructive  to  the 
Bible  cause,  may  be  traced  to  a  double  source. 
The  Jirst  is,  the  establishment  of  ecclesiastical 
jjoiver;  contests  for  vvhich  have  been  the  true 
secret  of  our  sectarian  divisions.  All  Dr.  M's 
reasonings  are  founded  upon  the  assumption,  that 
christians  have  a  right  to  transform  the  church  into 
a  volvntary  association.  This  assumption  re- 
jected, the  difficulty,  w^hich  is  supposed  to  be  so 
m.ighty,  dwindles  into  utter  insignificance.  A  ma- 
jority of  the  cases  of  discipline,  which  have  occur- 
red in  the  church,  have  originated  here.  The 
synod  of  Philadelphia,  for  example,  never  pretend- 
ed to  justify  their  high-handed  measures  by  the 
scriptures;  nor  on  the  broad  principle,  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  being  King  and  Head  of  the 
church,  had  commanded  them  to  do  what  they  did 
do.  Neither  does  Dr.  M.  in  his  letter,  pretend  to 
set  up  such  a  defence  for  them.  Had  they  gone  no 
farther  than  the  scriptures  warranted  them  to  go, 
their  reasonings  would  have  been  of  a  very  differ- 
ent character,  and  their  decisions  would  have  been 
reversed.  Let  the  church  be  constructed  on  her 
own  principles;  let  the  law  which  Christ  has  given 
her  take  its  own  proper  place,  and  exert  its  own 


57 

proper  influence;  let  room  be  afforded  for  the  due 
display  of   the  christian's  personal  graces,— love, 
humility,  gentleness,  forbearance,  &.c. — and  there 
will  be    v^ery  little   controversy.     The   conclusion 
will  follow,  that  there  can  be  no  need  for  multiply- 
ing facilities,  by  which  members  of  the  church  shall 
be  ejected  from  her  communion.     If  Dr.  M.  then 
inquires,  how  heretics  are  to  be  kept  out,  I  reply, 
abandon  those  ecclesiastical  schemes,  which  divide 
the  church   into  voluntary  associations,    and  intro- 
duce   continual   contests  about  the    power  of   the 
keys.      Let   christians  learn  to  seek  a  "godly  sim- 
plicity,'' rather  than  that  outward  show   of  secta- 
rian  superiority,   which  brings  in   the  kingdom  of 
God   "\Y\i\\  observation."     Let  both  ministers  and 
people  interest  themselves  about  the  spread  of  "pure 
and  undefiled  religion,"  rather  than  indulge  them- 
selves in  pride  and  complacency,  while  they  tell  ot 
'^seventeen  or  eighteen  hundred  congregations  be- 
longing to  our  hody.'^     But  if,  instead  of  this,  they 
will  still  sustain  their  voluntary  associations,  then  I 
admit,  as  was  done  in  the  ^^Remarks,"  that,  ^'the 
priesthood  being  changed,  there  is  made  of  necessi- 
ty a  change  also  of  the  law."     The  difficulty  thus 
changes  proprietors;  and  Dr.  M.  is  left  to  do  with 
it  what  he  pleases;  and  that  too  in  connexion  with 
the  fearful  responsibility  that  belongs  to  an  instruc- 
tor of  the  rising  ministry. 

If  the  christian  community  in  Baltimore  should 
be  of  the  Methodist  persuasion; — if  the  community 
in  Philadelphia  should  be  of  the  true  Presbyterian 


58 

order; — if  the  community  in  New  York,  should  be 
endowed  with  high  prelatical  privileges;  and  a 
christian,  agreeing  with  either,  or  with  none,  of 
them  in  their  peculiarities,  should  visit  any  of  these 
cities,  in  what  rektion  does  he  stand  to  the  mem- 
bers of  any  of  these  sects?  Is  he  a  brother,  or  is 
he  not?  If  he  is  a  brother,  may  they  undertake  to 
cast  him  off  as  an  alien?  May  they  refuse  him  a 
seat  at  the  table  of  their  master?  Or  may  he  de- 
cline to  obey  his  Lord's  commandment,  do  this  in 
remembrance  of  me?  Extend  these  questions  as 
far  as  they  may  be  carried;  i.  e.  as  far  as  Jehovah 
awards  evangelical  privileges  to  his  own  people, 
and  what  would  become  of  these  voluntary  associa- 
tions? The  ecclesiastical  idol  would  totter  on  his 
base,  and  Dagon  like,  perish  before  the  ark  of  the 
Lord.  But  is  this  extended  communion  admitted? 
Are  there  no  sects  in  the  church  in  open  and  un- 
blushing collision  with  its  spiritual  principle? 
How  long  is  it  since  this  subject  has  been  fairly 
exhibited  to  the  christian  public  in  America?  Who 
did  not,  but  the  other  day,  apprehend  the  most 
fearful  consequences  from  its  introduction?  But 
as  ft  has  proceeded  in  its  march,  has  not  controver- 
sy subsided?  As  it  goes  still  farther  on,  will  it  not 
continue  to  hush  angry  contests?  And  is  it  deli- 
rious to  expect,  that  even  the  heretical  speculations, 
which  Dr.  M.  so  frequently  calls  up  like  ^  ^spirits 
from  the  vasty  deep,"  may  presently  be  merged 
and  forgotten,  and  each  combatant  learn  the  lessons 
of  pure  Christianity? — If  men  would  but  quit  their 


59 

•strife,  errors  would  be  comparatively  few;  the 
Lord  God  would  reign  in  the  midst  of  them,  and 
his  i)rofessing  people  would  have  common  feelings, 
and  wear  a  common  image.  ''For  where  envying 
and  strife  are,  there  are  confusion  and  every  evil 
work." 

A  second  source  to  which  this  difficulty  may  be 
traced  is  scholastic  theology.     This  too  was  very 
distinctly  exhibited  in  the   ''Remarks,"  which  yet 
in  Dr.  M's  judgment,  left  all  his  original  positions 
unshaken  and  unassailed.     This   system,  or  rather 
the  jarring  systems,   which  fail  under  the  general 
designation  of  theology,   convert    religion    into    a 
human  science;  or  make  philosoph}^  and  metaphys- 
ics  the  test  of  orthodoxy.     Did  not  Origen  thus 
perplex  the  church  in  his  day,  and  leave  his  philo- 
sophic mantle   a  pernicious    legacy    behind    him? 
Did  not  Arianism  start  up  here,  and  is  she  not  the 
mere  child  of  subtle  speculation?     Do  not  christians 
of  different  denominations  in  the  present  day  agree 
more  fully  than  they  appear  to   do?     Are  not  the 
principal  subjects  of  their    controversy   the    mere 
bequests  of  their  fathers,  and  are  not  the  people  re- 
signing them   to    their  ministers;  perhaps,  after  a 
little,  to  resign  their  ministers  along  with  them? 

Dr.  M.  sometimes  refers  to  classes  of  men  in 
different  parts  of  our  country,  who  "reject  every 
thing  like  confessions,  and  boast  that  they  take  the 
BIBLE,  simply,  as  their  rule."  He  inquires  after 
the  orthodoxy  of  these  individuals;  and  remarks — 
"^'Ah!  it  is  death  to  his  (Mr.  D's)  cause  to  take  a 


60 

look  into  this  part  of  the  ecclesiastical  statistics  of 
our  country!"     These  churches  must  he  left  to  de- 
fend themselves.      I   have    had  no   opportunity  of 
knowing  them.      But  let  the  fact  be  admitted,  and 
still  Dr.  ]VPs  conclusion,  in  the  humble  opinion  of 
the  respondent,   is  a  complete  non  sequitur.      He 
himself  designates  them  by    controversial   names, 
and  in  doing  it,  would  go  through  the  whole  range 
of  heretics.     It  seems  then  that  they  have  all   the 
accredited  creeds  of  the  different   parties   in  their 
heads,   instead  of  a  sketch  or  summary  on   paper. 
The  example  goes  a  little  farther  than   Dr.  IVI.  in- 
tended it  should,  and  serves  to  reveal  the  pitch  of 
refinement  to   which    his   system  can   be    carried. 
And   is  not  the  presbyterian   church  on   the  high 
road  to   like   preferment?     The  people  in  the  first 
place  can  do  without  the  book  altogether;  and  then 
the  ministers,  if  we  may   believe   the   report  of  a 
sermon  lately   addressed  to  the  students  at  Prince- 
ton, are  greatly  troubling  the  church,  to  which  they 
belong,   by   their  difference  in  sentiment;    so  that 
the  confession  of  faith  in  the  presbyterian  church  is 
not  in  fact  the  creed  of  the  members  of  that  church. 
And  in  truth,  if  all  the  written  creeds  in  the  world 
were  committed  to  the  flames,  there  is  scholastic 
theology  enough  to  yield  immortality  to  their  dif- 
ferent items.      Dr.  M's  example  then  proves  entire- 
ly too  much  for  him,  and  only  serves  to  show  how 
perfect  the  system  has  become. 

If  then  the  question  is  again  pressed,  how  shall 
we  exclude  heresies  and  their  advocates  from  the 


61 

church,  I  reply, — Let  christians  quit  their  scholas- 
tic strife,  and  seek  after  nothing  but  biblical  theol- 
ogy. Let  young  men,  while  in  training  for  the 
ministry,  be  turned  to  the  study  of  the  Bible,  and 
taught  to  learn  for  themselves  what  Jehovah  has 
said.  Systems  of  theology  will  always  produce 
heretics;  for  they  are  always  creating  matters  of 
*  ^doubtful  disputation,*'  and  ranging  parties  in  hos- 
tile array.  Few  men  examine  every  thing  which 
belongs  to  any  given  system ;  and  many  men  de- 
clare a  vast  deal  more  than  they  know.  A  prin- 
ciple is  taken  for  granted^  and  then  its  legitimate 
consequence  is  boldly  defended;  whereas,  both 
should  be  discarded,  if  the  first  were  candidly  and 
fairly  considered.  Let  young  men  be  taught  to  in- 
vestigate for  themselves;  to  turn  their  attention 
to  the  scripture  page,  and  declare  no  more  than 
what  they  learn  from  prayerful  and  diligent  inquiry. 
When  this  is  done,  the  * 'millstone,"  which  we  are 
endeavouring  to  detach,  shall  roll  to  the  bottom  of 
the  floods;  and  Dr.  M.  and  myself,  with  our  Bibles 
in  our  hands,  shall  rise  to  the  paradise  of  God,  to 
differ  no  more  for  ever.  There  we  shall  see  as  we 
are  seen,  and  know  as  we  are  known;  and  charity, 
the  greatest  of  all  christian  graces,  now  so  loosely 
seated  on  our  hearts,  will  adorn  us  with  her  mantle, 
while  eternity  shall  last. 

The  foregoing  remarks  do  not  evade  the  point, 

but  they  state  the  real  difficulty: — a  difficulty,  which 

a  lover  of  the  Bible  may  rather  desire  to   see  re^ 

moved,  than  expect  that  it  will  be;  done  in  his  day, 

6 


62 

I  am  not  so  feverish  as  Dr.  M.  is  inclined  ta 
represent  me.  My  physician,  I  fear,  does  not  un- 
derstand my  disease;  at  least,  the  patient  has  no 
confidence  in  the  prescription*  I  see  **the  full 
front  and  force*'  of  his  objection;  and  the  Conclu- 
sion to  the  ^'Remarks"  derived  all  its  peculiarity 
from  the  distinct  perception  of  all  the  embarrassing 
circumstances  in  which  the  church  has  been  involv- 
ed. It  was  therefore  that  I  wished  not  to  be  cut 
off,  or  forced  to  withdraw,  from  brethren,  with 
whom  the  providence  of  God  had  associated  me, 
both  in  joy  and  sorrow.  A  revolution,  like  that 
which  has  been  so  briefly  described,  is  not  to  be 
accomplished  in  an  hour.  A  generation  may  pass 
away  before  any  very  deep  impression  may  be 
made.  Perhaps  Dr.  M's  prophecy  may  prove  but 
too  true,  and  something  like  another  babylonish 
captivity — a  season  of  awful  darkness,  which  may 
break  many  hearts, — be  necessary  to  bury  in  deep 
oblivion  the  fearful  mistakes  of  ecclesiastical  com- 
batants. My  forebodings  are  often  as  gloomy  as 
Dr.  M's  prospects  are  bright*  The  Lord  reigns. 
and  Zion  is  his  dwelling  place. 

2.  How  did  the  primitive  church  exclude  here- 
tics? Before  the  council  of  Nice  there  was  no  such 
permanent  document  as  we  call  a  creed  or  confes- 
sion of  faith; — what  was  done  without  it?  Irenseus 
sayS)  "as  the  sun  is  one  and  the  same  throughout  the 
whole  world,  so  the  preaching  of  the  truth  shines 
every  where,  and  enlightens  all  men  who  are  will- 
ing to  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  truth. '^    The;* 


63 

who  were  *  •trained  up  in  the  faith,  had  it  so  deeply 
imprinted  on  their  mindy^^  as  Justin  and  St.  Ire- 
naeus  observe,  ^Hhat  they  were  alwa3^s  ready  to  give 
an  account  thereof,  and  as  often  as  they  should  be 
required  to  do  it,  ivithout  making  use  of  any  one 
particular  form;  and  from  thence  proceeds  the 
difference  of  the  creeds  that  are  set  down  by  the 
fathers."  St.  Jerome  says,  <*that  the  faith  of  the 
rreed,  which  is  an  apostolical  tradition,  ivas  not 
ivritien  on  paper ^  or  ivith  ink,  hut  was  engraved 
on  the  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart.^^  Dupin  af- 
firms, that  '*every  bishop  instructed  his  own  people 
in  the  faith  of  the  church,  and  refuted  errors  by 
the  authority  of  scripture  and  tradition."  And 
further  he  asserts,  **the  errors  of  those  heretics 
created  horror  in  all  christians;  they  looked  upon 
the  authors  of  them,  and  those  who  maintained 
them,  as  people  excommunicated  and  separated 
from  the  church,  without  their  beinp;  expressly 
condemned  in  synods."  Such  was  tlie  manner 
in  which  the  early  christians  acted.  Why  should 
v/e  not  act  in  the  same  way?  It  might  be  as  effec- 
tual  a  plan  in  our  day  as  it  was  in  theirs:  and  a 
coincidence  in  sentiment,  as  well  as  a  harmony  of 
feeling,  might  be  as  general  now,  as  Irenseus  de- 
clares it  to  have  been  then.  Dr.  M.  has  asked — 
now?  He  is  answered  by  a  simple  detail  of  his- 
torical facts; — of  facts  which  should  have  remain^ed 
with  all  their  prominence  and  interest  to  the  present 
hour,  had  the  church  adhered  to  her  divine  consti- 
tution, instead  of  yielding  to  that  wretched   ambi- 


64 

tion,  which  changed  her  whole  face,  and  gave  lier 
a  new  form;  and  had  she  preserved  the  simplicity 
of  her  faith,  instead  of  conniving  at  those  philoso- 
phical speculations,  which  corrupted  her  doctrines. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  objected,  that  the  primitive 
church  became  very  much  degenerated.  This  fact 
the  letter  under  consideration  declares  will  not  be^ 
disputed.  But  what  then?  Was  it  for  want  of  a 
**form  of  sound  words?"  What  a  pity,  that  som^ 
3uch  test  had  not  defended  the  altars  of  the  sanctu- 
ary, when  Origen  drew  nigh  to  philosophize  over 
the  mysteries  of  redeeming  love!  What  a  pity, 
that  some  such  impassable  barrier  had  not  arrested 
Arius,  as  he  approached  the  throne  to  pluck  the 
crown  from  Immanuel's  brow!  The  objection 
is  a  mere  figment.  The  love  of  power,  and  an 
unhallowed  zeal  in  doctrinal  disputation,  corrupt-^ 
ed  the  church  then,  as  they  have  often  done  since, 
and  as  they  are  doing  at  this  present  hour,  to 
the  shame  of  those  who  are  so  engaged.  Creeds 
were  brought  in  as  an  ecclesiastical  recipe,  and  with 
the  professed  design  of  restoring  peace;  and  they 
liave  aggravated  tho  evil  they  sought  to  cure,  as 
they  should  haye  done  at  an  earlier  period,  had 
they  been  sooner  introduced. 

In  the  scriptures,  there  are  some  fundamental 
principles  of  Christianity  very  distinctly  stated,  and 
which  must  immediately  strike  every  candid  mind. 
The  man,  who  is  willing  to  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth,  cannot'  mistake  them.  About  these, 
even  now,  christians  agree;  which  is  one  of  the  best 


65 

proofs  that  could  be  offered  in  favour  of  the  sim- 
plicity of  those  principles.     Is  there  no   security 
for  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the  church,  in  this 
happy  consideration?    Was  it  not  in  this  very  thing 
that  the  primitive  church  might  have  gloried   so 
much?  Would  not  an  apostle  have  descended  cheer- 
fully to  this  level,  and  have  said — -^*If  any  man  be 
in  Christ  Jesus,  he  is  a  new  creature;  and  as  many 
as  walk  according  to  this  rule,  peace  be  on  them, 
and   mercy,  and  upon  the  whole  Israel  of  God?'' 
And  might  not  we,  with  like  liberality  of  feeling, 
follow  the  same  course,  and  so  attain  the  *  ^impor- 
tant end,"  so  greatly  to  be  desired?     Such  things, 
however,  do  not  satisfy  us,  and  every  step  we  go 
beyond  them  involves  us  in  controversy: — contro- 
versy which    is    always   embittered    by  becoming 
identified  with  a  party.     And  until  we  revert  to 
this  ground,  which  has  been  so  long  abandoned,  we 
can  never  attain  the   important  end  that  is  sought 
for,  either  with,  or  without,  a  creed, 

I  beg  that  I  may  be  understood.  No  intention 
is  felt  to  circumscribe  christian  inquiry.  The 
minister,  with  his  Bible  before  him,  may  lay  out 
all  his  mind  and  heart,  in  analysis,  in  exposition,  in 
argument,  in  exhortation.  But  let  him  do  it  under 
a  sense  of  personal  responsibility,  and  as  detached 
from  every  sectarian  corps.  Let  him  conscien- 
tiously feed  the  church  with  the  bread  of  life, 
dividing  to  each  saint  his  portion  in  due  geason; 
and,  as  a  scribe,  well  instructed  unto  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  bring  out  of  his  treasury  things  new 


66 

and  old.  Let  him  speak  wisdom  among  tiie  perteci. 
as  well  as  frame  lessons  suited  to  babes.  But  let 
him  not  do  this  with  wisdom  of  words,  nor  with 
the  zeal  of  a  partizan.  The  people  in  like  manner 
must  be  thrown  upon  their  responsibilities,  and 
urged  diligently  to  inquire  after  wisdom  and  truth, 
whose  price  is  above  rubies.  They  must  be  ex- 
horted to  practise,  rather  than  to  quarrel  about  what 
they  know;  and  to  love  one  another,  rather  than  to 
glory  over  each  other  on  account  of  their  sectarian 
privileges.  In  all  this  there  is  not  one  atom  of 
heresy.  There  is  nothing  but  a  little,  plain,  prac- 
tical Christianity.  Nor  can  a  better  method  be 
devised  to  keep  out  heresy.  A  common  interest 
will  thus  be  created;  common  feelings  will  be  cher- 
ished; angry  passions  will  be  extinguished;  party 
intrigues  will  be  abhorred;  knowledge  will  be  in- 
creased; and  thus  religious  society,  like  all  other 
kinds  of  society,  will,  under  the  divine  blessing, 
whatever  Dr.  M.  may  think  of  the  assertion,  fix  its 
own  social  principles,  ^'by  an  inherent  power  to 
regulate  itself."  To  that  happy  result  is  every 
thing  now  tending,  while  the  great  practical  move- 
ments of  christians  are  in  direct  collision  with  all 
sectarian  theories.  The  love  of  truth  in  the  heart, 
combined  with  social  virtues  in  the  life,  will  become 
a  principle  of  reform,  as  omnipotent  and  resistless  as 
the  blessing  of  Jehovah  can  make  it:  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  if  we  *'bite  and  devour  one  another," 
we  shall  as  certainly  be  "consumed  one  of  another." 
Adhering    to    fundamental    principles,    without 


67 

which  Christianity  cannot  at  all  exist,  aridua  regaitf 
of  which,  unanimity  of  sentiment  does  even  now 
prevail  far  beyond  the  lines  of  our  sectarian  divi- 
sions, the  primitive  church  did  live  and  floiirisli. 
Nor  did  she  ever  lose  her  spiritual  image,  until  hei 
sons  began  to  philosophize  about  her  doctrines,  and 
to  intrigue  for  dominion.  Then  a  necessity  for 
CREEDS  was  felt  or  supposed,  and  the  attempt  was 
made  ^Ho  hatch  a  counterfeit  life  with  the  crafty 
and  artificial  heat  of  jurisdiction."  What  followed, 
all  the  world  may  know: — agreeably  to  an  ancient 
observation,  '^religion  brought  forth  wealth,  and 
the  daughter  devoured  her  mother;"  or  according 
to  ecclesiastical  traditions,  when  Constantine's  libe- 
rality was  extended  and  accepted,  a  voice  was  heard 
from  heaven,  crying  aloud,  *^this  day  is  poison 
poured  into  the  church."  Let  us  then  revert  to 
her  original  ground,  and  the  important  object  under 
consideration  will  be  secured;  as  the  experiment, 
difficult  at  first,  and  having  many  apparent  contra- 
rieties to  adjust,  will  in  the  end  demonstrate. 

3.  The  question,  how  heresies  are  to  be  preclu- 
ded, will  be  fairly  met  by  throwing  ourselves  under 
the  protection  of  God^s  word  and  Spirit.  Dr.  M. 
judging  from  the  extract,  which  he  has  given  in  his 
letter,  from  the  Savoy  confession,  and  the  warm  re- 
commendation with  which  it  is  pressed  upon  my 
notice,  would  appear  to  think  that  these  are  rather 
equivocal  guardians  of  the  church  and  her  ordinan- 
ces. Indeed,  his  whole  reasoning  is  founded  upon 
their  supposed  insufficiency.     On  this  point  he  has 


68 

certainly  a  very  awkward  argument  to   maintain. 
Sometimes  indeed  he  does  venture  to  break  away 
from  its  trammels,  and  then  he  tells  us, — '*In  the 
mean   time,  the   bible  alone  is  sufficient,  I  have 
no  doubt,  and  has  actually  been  found  sufficient,  in 
many  thousands  of  cases,   when    accompanied   by 
that  Spirit  who  inspired  it,  to  make  men  Hvise  unto 
salvation. '  "  That  is,  if  I  understand  him,  now,  while 
christians  are  circulating  the  Bible  ^Svithout  note 
or  comment,^'  the  nations,  from  pole  to  pole,  who 
shall  thus  be  evangelized,  shall  find  the  Bible  alone 
sufficient,  w^hen  Fanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit.      It 
is  true   he  contemplates  the  introduction  of  creeds 
afterwards,   together   with  voluntary    associations, 
and  all  their  glorious  appendages.     What?     Are  no 
heresies  introduced  in  the  mean  time?     How  are 
they  kept  out?     By  the  Bible  alone,  accompanied 
by  that  Spirit  who  inspired  it?     Will  Dr.  M.  say 
all  this,  and  then  laugh  at  my  absurdity  for  suppos- 
ing that  we   christians,  who    have   every  spiritual 
privilege,  might  do  the  same  thing?     The  convert- 
ed heathen,  in  all  the  simplicity  of  their  first  love, 
m^y  present  an  exhibition  of  the  primitive  church; 
but  WE  must  strive  and  contend.      The  concession 
yields  the  whole  principle;  and  God  forbid  that  his 
prospect  of  recovering  it,  when  this  ^^mean  time" 
jshall  have  passed  away,  should  ever  be  realized. 

Can  we  conceive  of  any  better  guardians  than 
the  Bible  and  the  Spirit?  ^^To  the  law,  and  to  the 
testimony,"  say  the  scriptures  themselves. — *'A11 
scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God^  apd  is  pro- 


69 

fi table  for  doctrine,  for  reproofs  for  correction ^ 
for  instruction  in  righteousness,  that  the  man  of 
God    may   be   perfect,    thoroup;hly   furnished  unto 

all  good  works." ^^Not  by  might,  nor  by  power, 

bict  by  iny  spirit,  saith  the  Lord  of  Hosts."  The 
Spirit  ''will  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  and  of  right- 
eousness, and  of  judgment."  The  Spirit  of  truth 
**will  guide  you  into  all  truth."  Now  what 
more  can  the  church  want?  Where  is  the  chris- 
tian's faith?  Is  God  no  more  unto  Jerusalem  ''a 
wall  of  fire  round  about?"  Will  he  be  no  more 
"the  glory  in  the  midst  of  her?"  Shall  his  people 
call  upon  the  Egyptians  for  help?  Shall  the  minis- 
try, like  Uzzah,  put  forth  their  hand  to  the  ark  of 
the  Lord?  Does  Dr.  M.  inquire  who  is  to  defend 
the  church  from  her  enemies,  as  though  it  had  not 
long  ago  been  revealed,  that  ^'the  Lord  will  create 
upon  every  dwelling  place  of  Mount  Zion,  and 
upon  her  assemblies,  a  cloud  and  smoke  by  day, 
and  the  shining  of  a  flaming  fire  by  night;  for  upon 
all  the  glory  shall  be  a  defence?"  Is  there  any 
<  ^restraint  to  the  Lord,  to  save  by  many  or  by 
few?"  Why  all  this  diffidence  about  results,  which 
the  providence  of  God  stands  pledged  to  secure;  or 
these  fears  about  the  church,  which  he  has  *  ^pur- 
chased with  his  own  blood ?'^  I  may  not  coincide 
with  the  advocates  of  creeds  in  their  practical  unbe- 
lief, nor  share  in  councils  which  question  the  divine 
faithfulness. 

But  it  is  to  be  apprehended,  that  Dr.  M's  ques- 
tion does  not  propose  the  real  difficulty,    To  refraiu 


70 

from  fellowship  with  men  who  deny  the  Lord  that 
bought  them,  is  not  the  object  for  which  human 
creeds,  as  they  are  now  employed,  make  provision: 
and  to  accomplish  which  the  word  and  Spirit  are 
represented  as  so  insufficient.  There  is  a  mucli 
more  serious  difficulty  pressing  upon  our  secta- 
rian ingenuity,  which  creeds  are  called  in  to  re- 
move; and  that  is, — how  may  living  christians  be 
excluded  from  our  communion?  Or,  how  may 
presbyteries  and  synods  avoid  extending  forbear- 
ance to  those  who  do  not  exactly  agree  with  them 
in  sentiment?  It  is  no  matter  of  w^onder  that  human 
legislation  should  be  resorted  to,  in  order  to  invent 
an  expedient  to  meet  such  a  case;  for  the  Bible  is 
altogether  insufficient,  to  teach  us  how  we  may 
safely  contend  with  one  another;  or  issue  mutual 
sentences  of  excommunication.  The  scriptures  call 
for  forbearance,  and  all  its  kindred  virtues,  and  for- 
bid ^Moubtful  disputations,"  with  all  their  kindred 
evils.  Such  passages  as  Dr.  M.  quotes  with  so 
much  ease, — separating  betw^een  the  "precious  and 
the  vile," — are  altogether  aside  of  the  subject.  The 
separation  is  between  those  who  are  not  vile,  but  who 
are  the  Lord's  people,  having  "one  Lord,  one  faith, 
one  baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all."  Or,  to 
say  the  very  least,  the  whole  church  is  thrown  into 
dissention  and  confusion;  the  most  fearful  animosi- 
ties are  cherished;  and  controversies,  under  false 
sanctions,  are  handed  down  from  father  to  son  as  a 
spiritual  legacy  of  the  most  costly  value;  in  order 
that  heresies  and  heretics  mav  be  excluded  from 


71 

the  church.  Is  this  not  plucking  up  the  wheat  with 
the  tares,  and  undertaking  to  do  what  the  Master 
has  commanded  us  all  to  leave  to  his  own  arbitre- 
ment  at  the  judgment  day? 

To  repeat  here  a  question,  which  was  earnestly- 
pressed  in  the  ^^Remarks;"— if  these  ecclesiastical 
creeds  are  so  very  necessary, that  the  church  cannot 
possibly  do  without  them,  why  did  not  the  Master 
furnish  us  with  them?  "It  seems  to  us  to  be  a  very 
Strange  problem,  that  such  instruments  should  be  so 
indispensable,  and  that  yet  neither  the  Lord  Jesus, 
nor  any  of  his  apostles,  should  ever  have  given 
them  to  us.''  It  cannot  be  replied,  that  the  occasion, 
or  a  difference  in  human  sentiments,  on  which  the 
whole  argument  rests,  was  not  afforded:  for  never 
was  there  an  age,  when  the  controverted  points 
were  of  more  vital  importance,  than  when  the  apos- 
tles themselves  lived  and  preached.  Yet,  no  annual 
synods  were  called,  neither  were  any  human  creeds 
erected  into  tests  of  orthodoxy.  Nor  can  it  be  re- 
plied, that  they  were  unapprised  of  the  difficulties 
of  the  coming  times,  or  that  they  carelessly  suppos- 
ed that  their  epistles  would  settle  all  controversies, 
and  for  even  For  they  foretold  the  endless  here- 
sies, which  should  creep  in  after  their  decease,  and 
have  described,  not  only  Antichrist— huge,  un- 
sightly, and  deformed,— but  they  have  spoken  of 
many  antichrists  * 'already  in  the  world."  Yet  no 
human  creed  was  formed,  which  in  our  day  is  re- 
presented as  a  sovereign  remedy.  And  why  not? 
To  me  it  would  seem,  that  it  was  because  thpv  Lo^ 


no  right  to  make  one,  or  that  they  kftew  that  it  would 
be  good  for  nothing  when  it  was  made.  I  may  be 
mistaken.  Theii  why  did  not  the  Lord  Jesus,  or 
some  of  the  apostles,  give  us  a  creed,  seeing  the 
church  must  perish  without  it? 

The  argument,  involved  in  the  observations  im- 
mediately preceding^  if  it  be  not  too  positive  to  say 
so,  I  consider  unanswerable,  at  least  by  Dr.  M. — 
He  cannot  throw  it  back  upon   me,  as  being  incon- 
siderable, or  undeserving  of  attention.      For,  in  his 
Letters  on  the  episcopal  controversy,  he  makes  a 
very  confident  use  of  it  himself;  as,  I  doubt  not,  ma- 
ny advocates  of  creeds  have  done  before  and   since 
those  letters  were  ushered  into  the  world.      He  had 
occasion  to  refer  to   * 'public  prayer,"  and  observes 
in  a  note;-^'*By  the  w^ay,  it  is  not  a  little  remarka- 
ble that  the  apostle  should  content  himself  with  giv- 
ing Timothy  only  general  directions  with  respect 
to  public   prayer,  and  even  these  only  with  regard 
to  some  of  the  objects  of  petition.     Where  were  the 
liturgies  of  those  times?    Had  forms  of  prayer  been 
so  indispensably  necessary,  or,  at  least,  so  pre- 
tminently  important,    as  our  episcopal   brethren 
tell  us  they  are,  and  always  have  been,  why  did 
not  Paul,  or  some  other  of  the  apostles,  furnish  the 
churches  with  liturgies  written  by  themselves,  and 
under  the    immediate  inspiration   of  the  Holy 
Ghost?     How  shall  we  account  for  it^  that  instead 
of  sending  Timothy  a  form,  he  only  laid  down  for 
him  a  few  general  words  of  direction?     But  this  is 
not  the  only  instance  in  which  the  apostles  appear 


73 

to  have  been  of  a  different  mind  from  some  modera 
churchmen.''*  For  example,  creeds. — But  I  will 
not  press  too  hard.  I  leave  this  argument  to  his 
calm  and  serious  reflection.  The  '•^important  end," 
under  consideration,  is  to  be  obtained  by  a  due  and 
faithful  use  of  God's  word  and  spirit.  Such  is  the 
divine  arrangement,  which  no  system  of  human 
policy  can  amend  or  improve. 

4.  There  are  certain  things  which  men  cannot 
«scapejf  they  would.  They  may  often  meliorate 
what  they  cannot  cure;  and  they  will  only  aggra- 
vate an  evil  by  attempting  to  prevent,  what  the  pre- 
sent condition  of  society  places  above  their  reach. 
Can  you  hinder  a  man  from  thinking?  ^^I  will  not 
my,''  said  lord  Thurlow,  ^^that  your  majesty  is  un- 
grateful, but  I  think  so." — In  religion,  above  all 
other  things,  the  heart  belongs  unto  the  Lord,  as  a 
matter  subject  to  his  own  inspection.  Can  you  con- 
jure away  from  me  the  images  of  eternity,  or  ex- 
tinguish in  my  soul  the  idea  of  God?  If  ajnan's 
impressions  on  topics  of  such  high  concern  are  false 

can  you  alter  tliem  by  the  gibbet  or  the  sword? 

When  religious  sects  possess  the  royal  ear,  and  are 
supported  by  the  royal  decree,  multitudes  may 
change  their  visible  professions,  or  suffer  their  con- 
sciences to  become  seared,  from  calculations  of  a  secu- 
lar character.  But  in  a  free  land,  where  the  civil 
arm  would  be  paralysed  by  an  effort  to  establish 
mental  slavery,  different  consequences  must  follow;. 
Why  then  undertake  to  control  thought,  or  to  iu-. 
*  Vol.  2.  p.  88—9. 


74 

troduce  a  system  of  legislation,  founded  upon  the 
absurd  assumption  that  men  must  think  alike?  Or 
when  divine  providence  is,  with  mysterious  pur- 
pose, diffusing  the  varieties  of  human  character  over 
the  world,  and  thus  making  men  mutual  aids,  why 
should  we  separate  and  class  them  according  to  some 
arbitrary  rule  of  a  fancied  similarity? 

In  the  parable  of  the  tares  of  the  field,  to  which 
I  before   alluded,    this  subject   is  most  beautifully 
illustrated.     Human  talent  is  not  competent  to  the 
task  of  distinguishing  accurately,  between  the  dif- 
ferent degrees  of  religious  impressions,  which  men 
may  receive.      *^In   the    multitude  of  counsellors, 
there  is  safety,"   says  Solomon:  and  yet,  even  un- 
der these  favourable  circumstances,  such  an  experi- 
ment has  uniformly  and  completely  failed.      Synods 
and  councilsj  with  all  their  supposed  wisdom,  have 
never  produced    unanimity    of    sentiment    in    the 
church:    though  they    have  often  ejected  from  all 
spiritual  communion  under  their  jurisdiction,  those 
who  loved  the   Lord  Jesus;  and    have   called  upon 
the  arena  of  their  unhallowed  conflicts,  hostile  sy- 
nods to  oppose  their  unrighteous  measures.     The 
wheat  and  the  tares,  it  seems,  must  still  grow  to- 
gether, by  a  moral  necessity,  which  men  have  not 
sagacity,  nor  power  enough,  to  remove.      **Offen- 
ces  must  needs   come."      Wo,   indeed,   unto  the 
man  by  whom  they  come;  but  still  \h^y  inust  come. 
Such  is  the  situation  of  human  things,  and  the  fact 
should  teach  ecclesiastical  politicians  to  make  large 
allowances  for  the  infirmities  of  human  nature;  to 


75 

mingle  their  censures  with  something  of  ««the  milk 
of  human  kindness;"  to  substitute  charity  for  invec- 
tive; to  be  gentle  and  forbearing,  considering  them- 
selves lest  they  also  be  tempted;  and  to  do  a 
thousand  other  things,  which  would  betoken  the 
high  origin  of  their  ministerial  commission. 

To  be  plain.  There  is  a  vast  deal  too  much  legis- 
lation in  the  church.  There  would  be  more  harmo- 
ny and  more  purity,  if  there  were  fewer  courts  and 
fewer  laws.  There  are  many  things  in  the  world, 
which  never  thrive  so  well  as  when  they  are  let 
alone.  And  religion,  comparatively  speaking,  is 
one  of  those  things.  That  is,  it  is  not  the  resuU  of 
an  enlarged,  and  continually  enlarging  code  of  laws: 
but  it  is  of  the  operation  of  God  upon  the  heart;  and 
never  bursts  forth  with  greater  fulness  or  beauty  up- 
on the  wt)rld,  than  when  it  is  tenderly  cherished  in 
private.  You  might  as  well  expect  to  make  or  test 
a  philosopher  by  a  set  of  by-laws  in  an  academy,  as 
to  make  or  test  a  christian  by  synodical  decrees. — 
By  such  a  course,  politicians  have  ruined  human 
society-;  until  a  reaction  has  occurred,  heaping  revo- 
lution upon  revolution.  And  by  the  same  course, 
theologians  have  reached  the  appalling  maxim— Ig- 
norance is  the  motlier  of  devotion.  It  is,  and  it 
must  necessarily  be,  the  result,  that  mankind  shall 
be  injured  by  interfering  with  freedom  of  thought. 
The  human  mind  can  never  be  what  it  ought  to  be, 
without  liberty.  Its  perceptions  are  never  so  accu- 
rate; its  views  are  never  so  enlarged;  its  decisions 
are  never  so  prompt;  its  reasonings  are   never  so 


76 

ingenuous;  its  approaches  to  God  are  never  So  close: 
as  when,  free  and  untrammelled,  it  learns  from  the 
prospects  of  the  life  to  come,  the  duties  of  the  life 
that  now  is.  Virtue  and  liberty  go  hand  in  hand: 
at  least  men  begin  to  thiuk  so,  and  every  day  accu- 
mulates testimony  that  it  is  so.  Give  us  religious 
liberty  then,  and  what  becomes  of  heresy.  If  on 
the  one  hand,  * 'liberty  produces  virtue,  order  and 
stability;"  and  on  the  other,  ' 'slavery  is  accompa- 
nied by  vice,  weakness,  and  misery,"  as  Sidney 
would  tell  us,  and  as  might  easily  be  demonstrated 
by  an  induction  of  facts,  as  it  has  been  by  Sidney,  why 
all  these  apprehensions — these  fearful  prognostics 
of  the  disastrous  consequences  of  religious  liberty?^ 
I  should  be  very  much  disinclined  to  suspect  Dr. 
M.  of  an  attempt  to  drive  me  into  this  wretched  ex- 
treme. But  then  such  is  the  nature  of  his  question, 
and  cf  all  the  reasonings  by  which  it  is  illustrated: 
such  is  his  argument  in  relation  to  the  ministerial 
office,  which  has  already  been  shown;  and  such  is 
the  character  of  his  prophetic  impulses^  when  he 
argues  that  the  ' 'no-creed  system,"  as  he  would  call 
il,  rushes  headlong  into  the  wildest  independency. 
All  this,  no  doubt,  he  fully  believes.  But  as  I  mean 
to  act  according  to  my  own  creed,  I  refuse  to  move 
one  step,  without  my  own  consent.  Men  may  use 
their  * 'liberty  for  a  cloak  of  maliciousness,"  and 
often  have  done  it:  but  that  they  must  necessarily 
do  it,  or  that  such  is  the  unavoidable  consequence  of 
moral  freedom,  is  another  proposition  altogether; 
which  it  would  require  more  than  the  erudition  of 


77 

a  Salmaslus,  or  the  effrontery  of  a  Filmcr,  to  estab- 
lish. Many  such  prophecies  were  tumultuously 
uttered  by  the  enemies  of  the  American  revolution, 
in  their  hurried  zeal;  but  time  and  facts  have  prov- 
ed them  hasty  and  untrue. 

*^Ariosto  tells  a  pretty  story  of  a  fairy,  who,  by 
one  mysterious  law  of  her  nature,  was  condemned 
to  appear,  at  certain  seasons,  in  the  form  of  a  foul 
and  poisonous  snake.  Those  who  injured  her  during 
the  period  of  her  disguise,  were  forever  excluded 
from  participation  in  the  blessings  which  she  be- 
stowed. But  to  those,  who,  in  spite  of  her  loathsome 
aspect,  pitied  and  protected  her,  she  afterwards  re- 
vealed herself  in  the  celestial  and  beautiful  form 
which  was  natural  to  her,  accompanied  their  steps, 
granted  all  their  wishes,  filled  their  houses  with 
wealth,  made  them  happy  in  love,  and  victorious  in 
war.  Such  a  spirit  is  liberty.  At  times  she  takes 
the  form  of  a  hateful  reptile.  She  grovels,  she 
hisses,  she  stings.  But  wo  to  those  who,  in  dis- 
gust, shall  venture  to  crush  her!  And  happy  are 
they,  who,  having  dared  to  receive  her  in  her  degrad- 
ed and  frightful  shape,  shall  at  length  be  rewarded 
by  h«r  in  the  time  of  her  beauty  and  her  glory! 

^^There  is  only  one  cure  for  the  evils  which  newly 
acquired  freedom  produces — and  that  cure  is  free- 
dom. When  a  prisoner  first  leaves  his  cell,  he  can- 
not bear  the  light  of  day: — he  is  unable  to  discrim- 
inate colours,  or  recognize  faces.  But  the  reme- 
dy is,  not  to  remand  him  into  his  dungeon,  but  to 
accustom  him  to  the  rays  of  the  sun=  The  blaze  of 
7* 


78 

Li'iith  and  liberty  may  at  first  dazzle  and  bewilder 
nations,  which  have  become  half  blind  in  the  house 
of  bondage.      But  let  them  gaze  on,  and  they  shall 
soon  be  able  to  bear  it.     In  a  few  years  men  learn  to 
reason.     The  extreme  violence  of  opinions  subsides. 
Hostile  theories  correct  each  other.      The  scattered 
elements  of  truth  cease  to  conflict,  and  begin  to  coa- 
lesce.     And  at  length  a  system  of  justice  and   or- 
der is  educed  out  of  the  chaos."     Or,  as  was  stated 
in  the    "Remarks," — '^in   society  individuals  will 
approximate  to,  or  recede  from  each  other,  in  their 
modes  of  thinking  and  habits  of  action;  an  assimila- 
tion may  occur,  by  an   inherent  or  an  accidental 
power  in  society  to  regulate  itself,  and  thus  some  so- 
cial principles  will  be  adopted  by  common  consent." 
It  may  be  urged  in  reply,  that  our  fathers  have 
long  since  tried  the  experiment  of  these  liberal  prin- 
ciples, and  found  them  wanting.      Ah,  me!    What 
absurdity  have  not  our  fathers  demonstrated  to  be 
just  and  rational?    They  have  demonstrated  that  the 
nations  ought  to  be  governed  by  hereditary  kings. 
They  have  demonstrated  that  the  church  should  be 
regulated  by  diocesan  bishops;  or,  rising  according 
to  a  duly  graduated  scale,  that  at  last  the  pope,  as 
universal  bishop,  is  entitled  to  universal  obeisance. 
They  have  demonstrated  that  church  and  state  should 
be   identified    together,  under  a  common  constitu- 
tion.    But  what  has  their  posterity  said  to  these 
several  demonstrations?     On  all  these  subjects  Dr. 
M.  would  reject  their  testimony  with  unmingled  in- 
dignation, and  shelter  himself  under  the  reformation 


79 

motto — the  Bible  is  the  religion  of  protestants.  Is 
it  then  only  in  making  creeds  that  any  reliance  is  to 
be  placed  on  their  judgment?  Or  have  we  not  alter- 
ed^ revised,  amended,  enlarged,  rejected,  the  creeds 
they  made?  Has  their  wisdom  dwindled  away  into 
insignificance  in  every  thing  else,  and  may  we  safely 
take  the  Bible  in  one  thing  and  not  in  another? 

Dr.  M.  however,  very  confidently  urges  the  ex- 
perience of  others,  who  have  lived  before  us,  as  af- 
fording a  very  decisive  argument.      The  following 
rernarkahle  declaration,  he  quotes  from  the  preface 
to   the   Savoy    confession,   and   facetiously    enough 
presses  it  upon  my  serious  and  frequent  perusal. — 
"Hitherto  there  have  been  no  associations  of  our 
churches,  no  meetings  of  our  ministers,  to  promote 
the  common  interest.     Our  churches  are  like  so  ma- 
ny ships  launched  singly,  and  sailing  apart  and  alone 
in  the  vast  ocean,  in  these  tumultuous  times,  exposed 
to  every  wind  of  doctrine;  under  no  other  conduct 
tlian  the  word  and  spirit;  and  our  particular  elders, 
and  principal  brethren,  without  associations  among 
ourselves,  or  so  much  as  holding  out  a  common  light 
to  others,  whereby  they  may  know  where  we  are.'' 
After  reading  this  passage,  according  to  the  wishes 
of  my  adviser,  I  can  see  nothing  remarkable  in  it, 
but  what  is  truly  objectionable.      There  is  nothino- 
Very  remarkable  in  attempting  to  correct  supposed 
evils  by  false  remedies.   There  is  nothing  very  remar- 
kable in  the  circumstance,  that    men  should  ima- 
gine  that   church   courts   are   highly    useful,    and 
ecclesiastical  power  very  desirable.    All  such  things 


80 

are  common,  wherever  the  creed  cause  has  prevail- 
ed, and  might  very  easily  creep  in  among  classes  of 
^^Independents,"  who  might  soon  learn  to  reason 
like  their  ncighhours,  and  fancy  a  necessity  to  exist 
to  copy  their  example.  The  sons  of  Samuel  go- 
verned Israel  in  a  mischievous  and  immoral  manner, 
and  the  people  inferred  from  this  evil,  that  they 
must  have  a  king: — '^Nay;  but  we  will  have  a  king 
over  us;  that  we  also  may  be  like  all  the  nations." 
Change  terms,  and  the  Argument  is  as  good  in  one 
case  as  in  the  other.  So  also  in  the  second  century, 
the  primitive  church  would  have  councils;  because^ 
as  Dr.  Mosheim  intimates,  their  great  utility  was 
soon  perceived.  And  yet,  what  evils  have  not  coun- 
cils produced  in  the  church,  from  that  day  to  this? 
But  that  which  I  do  consider  as  remarkable  in  this 
extract  is,  that  christian  ministers  should  speak  in 
such  a  disrespectful  manner  of  God's  word  and  spirit: 
and  lament  so  mournfully  that  they  had  no  better 
pilots  to  direct  them  to  the  haven  of  peace;  that 
they  found  no  refuge  from  the  storm  in  the  protec- 
tion of  the  King  of  kings;  that  they  so  bitterly  wailed 
their  fate,  as  though  their  brethren  neither  saw,  nor 
cared  for,  their  distress;  and  above  all,  that  Dr.  M, 
should  laud  them  so  highly,  and  prematurely  triumph 
in  the  demonstration,  that  a  creed,  being  able  to  ef- 
fect what  the  word  and  spirit  of  God  could  not  do, 
is  above  all  praise. 

Dr.  M.  is  fully  aware  that  quotations  may  be 
made  on  both  sides;  and  that  sometimes,  the  best 
answer  that  can  be  given  to  the  opinion  of  one  fa- 


81 

thei'j  is  to  lay  alongside  of  it  the  opinion  of  another 
father.  I  would  avail  myself  of  the  privilege,  and 
offer,  very  respectfully,  the  following  extract  to 
the  serious  consideration  of  my  worthy  opponent. 
I  do  not  apprehend  that  he  is  not  aware  of  its  exist- 
ence, or  that  he  has  not  read  it  ^^again  and  again:" 
but  it  serves  me  at  the  present  juncture,  and  may 
meet  the  eye  of  some  reader,  who  never  saw  it  be- 
fore. It  is  from  the  pen  of  Hilary,  bishop  of 
Poictiers,  in  Aquitania,  who  flourished  in  the  fourth 
century,  and  is  as  follows: — ^*It  is  a  thing  equally 
deplorable  and  dangerous,  that  there  are  as  many 
creeds  as  there  are  opinions  among  men;  as  many 
doctrines  as  inclinations;  and  as  many  sources  of 
blasphemy  as  there  are  faults  among  us;  because 

WE     MAKE     CREEDS      ARBITRARILY,      AND      EXPLAIN 

THEM  AS  ARBITRARILY.  And  as  there  is  but  one 
faith,  so  there  is  but  one  only  God,  one  Loi^d,  and 
one  baptism.  We  renounce  this  one  faith,  when 
we  make  so  many  different  creeds;  and  that  diver- 
sity is  the  reason  why  we  have  no  true  faith  among 
us.  We  cannot  be  ignorant,  that  since  the 
COUNCIL  OF  Nice,  we  have  done  nothing  but 
MAKE  CREEDS.  And  wliilc  wc  fight  against  words, 
litigate  about  new  questions,  dispute  about  equivo- 
cal terms,  complain  of  authors,  that  every  one  may 
make  his  own  party  triumph;  while  we  cannot 
agree,  while  we  anathematize  one  another,  there  is 
hardly  one  that  adheres  to  Jesus  Christ.  What 
change  was  there  not  in  the  creed  last  year!  The 
ftrst  council   ordained  a  silence  upon  the  homoou- 


82 

sion;  the  second  establislied  it,  and  would  have  us 
speak;  the  third  excuses  the  fathers  of  the  council, 
and  pretends  they  took  the  word  oiisia  simply;  the 
fourth  condemns  them,  instead  of  excusing  them. 
With  respect  to  the  likeness  of  the  Son  of  God  to 
the   Father,   which   is  the  faith   of  our   deplorable 
times,  they  dispute  whether  he  is  like  in  whole,  or 
in    part.      These  are  rare  folks  to  unravel    the 
secrets  of  heaven.     Nevertheless    it  is  for  these 
creeds,  about  invisible  mysteries,  that  we  calum- 
niate one  another,   and  for  our  belief  in   God. 
We  make  creeds  every  year;  nay  every  moon  we 
repent  of  what  we  have  done,  we  defend  those  that 
repent,   we  anathematize  those  that  we   defended. 
So   we  condemn   either  the   doctrine  of   others  in 
ourselves,  or  our  own  in  that  of  others;  and,  recip- 
rocally   tearing    one  another    to  pieces,   we   have 
been  the  cause  of  each  other's  ruin." — The  reader 
will  find  this  extract  partially  quoted  in  ^'Gibbon's 
Decline  and  Fall,"  &c.  and  given  entire,   as  here 
copied  out,  in  ^^Locke's  new  method  of  a  common 
place  book."  If  he  please,  he  may  compare  it  with 
the  preface  to   the  Savoy  confession,   and  observe 
how  much   men,    wlio   cannot  be  directed  by  the 
word  and  spirit  of  God,  gain  by  making  creeds. 

I  cannot,  however,  part  with  this  extract  without 
a  remark  or  two. 

1.  It  proves  that  the  account  given  of  the  rise  of 
creeds,  in  the  * 'Remarks,"  and  which  traced  them 
to  the  council  of  Nice,  is  perfectly  correct. 


83 

2.  It  shows  that  creeds  from  the  first  have  been 
the   mere  instruments  of  division;  and   that  they 
did  not  produce,  in  those  days,  either  the  harmony 
or  purity,  which,  from  Dr.  M's  view  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Nice,  the  reader  might  be  inclined  to  imagine 
they  did. — -^^For  these  creeds,"  says  Hilary,   ^'zve 
talumniate  one  another.'*^ — ^^Reciprocally  tearing 
one  another  to  pieces,  we  have  been   the  cause  of 
each  other's  ruin." — Such  was  the  utility  of  creeds 
then. 

3.  Dr.  M.  discovers  in  the  ^'Remarks"  some 
phrases,  which  have  a  terribly  heretical  squint: 
such  as, — *'the  council  of  Nice  was  riven  by  a  dis- 
pute ABOUT  words:" — then  ^^speculation  was  ar- 
rayed against  speculation."  But  are  not  the  de- 
clarations true?  Hilary,  living  in  that  day,  vouches 
for  their  truth:"— for  he  says— ^Sve  fight  against 
words" — we  ^'dispute  about  equivocal  terms" — ^ 
one  council  required  ^'silence  upon  the  homoou- 
sion,^^  and  another  would  call  for  deliberate  declara- 
tions;— one  would  take  *Hhe  word  oiisia  simply," 
and  another  would  not; — they  were  "rare  folks  to 
unravel  the  mysteries  of  heaven." 

4.  Hilary  was  not  an  Arian,  but  was  a  zealous 
champion  for  orthodoxy:  though  by  the  rules  of 
ratiocination,  now-a-days  adopted,  he  might  justly 
be  considered  as  such.  And  so  may  a  thousand 
others:  Dr.  Watts,  for  example,  to  a  charge  against 
whose  orthodoxy  on  the  subject  of  the  Trinity, 
many  in  the  presbyterian  church  are  exceedingly- 
sensitive, — who  says,   «^No  bishop,  or    presbyter, 


84 

710  synod  or  council,  no  church  nor  assembly  of  men^ 
since  the  days  of  inspiration,  hath  power  derived  to 
them  from  God,  to  make  creeds  or  articles  of  faith 
for  us,  and  impose  them  upon  our  understandings. 
We  must  all  act  according  to  the  best  of  our  own 
light,  and  the  judgment  of  our  own  consciences, 
using  the  best  advantages  which  providence  hath 
jriven  us,  with  honest  and  impartial  diligence  to  in- 
quire and  search  out  the  truth:  for  every  one  of  us 
must  give  an  account  of  himself  to  God.  To  be- 
lieve as  the  c/nirch,  or  the  court  believes,  is  but  a 
sorry  and  a  dangerous  faith:  this  principle  would 
make  more  heathens  than  christians,  and  more  pa- 
pists than  j)rotestants;  and  perhaps  lead  more  souls 
to  hell  than  to  heaven;  for  our  Saviour  himself  has 
plainly  told  us,  that  if  the  blind  will  be  led  by  the 
blind,  they  must  both  fall  into  the  ditch.^' 

This  section  is  long.  It  has  necessarily  been  so. 
Dr.  M.  hinges  the  whole  controversy  upon  its 
subject,  and  esteeming  his  propositions  demonstra- 
ble, he  argues  nothing  less  than  destruction  to  my 
cause.  I  was  anxious  to  *  ^detach  the  millstone," 
that  he  hangs  on  my  neck,  and  escape  free  and  un- 
trammelled to  the  land  of  liberty,  on  whose  ver- 
dure every  christian  may  love  to  look,  and  on 
whose  fruit  every  minister  of  the  gospel  should 
delight  to  regale.  Though  there  be  abundant  room 
still  to  enlarge,  yet,  fearing  that  further  illustration 
might  be  tedious  to  my  reader,  I  leave  the  whole 
subject  to  his  judgment,  perfectly  willing  that  he, 
or  Dr.  M,   or  any  other  '^neighbour,"  may  search 


85 

out  this  cause,  which   is  indisputably  right  in   mv 
own  eyes. 

SECTION  V. 

The  ^ ^Remarks/'  it  seems,  have  in  no  form  dis- 
dosed  how  the  church  can  -be  a  depository  of 
truth,"  or  -bear  testimony,  from  age  to  a-e,  in 
favour  of  the  truth,''  without  adopting  and  publish- 
ing ecclesiastical  creeds:— which  is  another  -im- 
portant  end"  of  these  instruments,  that  had  been 
distinctly  noticed  and  strongly  urged  in  the  "Lec- 
ture." How  far  this  charge  may  be  sustained,  I 
will  not  stop  to  inquire:  but  turn  immediately  to 
its  subject. 

Is  it  not  strange  that  God  should  have  construct^ 
ed  his  church  in  such  a  manner,  that  she  cannot  be 
a   depository  of  truth,  or  bear  testimony  to  truth, 
unless  men  should  mend  her  form,  and  unite  a  hu- 
man contrivance  with  her  sacred  institutions.^     Is 
not  an  assertion  like  this,  a  presumptuous  reflection 
upon   divine  wisdom.^     Might   it  not,  with    equal 
propriety,  be  said,  that  the  church  can  have  no  visi- 
ble fellowship  with  her  glorious  head,  without  forms 
of  prayer.^     If  an  ecclesiastical    creed  was  so  in- 
dispensably necessary,  where  has  the  Redeemer  re- 
ferred to  its  important  consequences,  or  where  has 
he  prescribed  the  rules,  according  to  which  it  is  to 
be  found.^    The  subject  of  communicating  truth,  has 
not  been  overlooked  in  the  scriptures.    The  Master 
himself  is  the  true  and  faithfurwitness,  who  came 
to  bear  testimony  on   earth,   as  having  the  truth 

o 


8B 

committed  to  him;  the  law  and  the  prophets  are  re- 
presented as  giving  witness  to  him;  the  ministry  of 
reconciliation  are   described  as  his    witnesses;  the 
Holy  Ghost,  first  as  the  Spirit  of  prophecy,  and 
now  in  all  his  official  operations,  is  styled  a  witness 
for  the  truth;  mention  is  made  in   general  terms  of 
Christ's  *^two  witnesses"  who  shall  be  slain;  and  the 
church  is  the  light  of  the  world — a  city  set  upon  a 
hill  that  cannot  be  hid.      So  varied  are  the  scriptu- 
ral  representations    on    the    subject  of    exhibiting 
truth,  transmitting  it  from  age  to  age,  and  carrying 
it  to  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  that  Jehovah  seems 
to  have  left  no  means  unemployed,  which  are  con- 
sistent with  man's  infirmities,    or  with  his    free- 
agency.      And  yet  not  one  word  is  uttered  about 
ecclesiastical  creeds.      How  then  Dr.  M.  can  under- 
take to  say,  that  the  church  cannot  "fulfil  one  great 
purpose,"  or  ^^fiiithfully  discharge  one  great  duty, 
for  which   she  was  instituted,"  unless   she  writes 
out  these  authoritative  acts  and  testimonies,  I  cannot 
see.       If  these  things  were  so  inestimably  precious, 
the  Master  would  have  told  us  about  them  in  some 
part  of  the  sacred  volume;  would  have  calculated 
the  happy  consequences  which  should  have  resulted 
on  the  one  hand,  from  their  adoption,   and  the  evil 
consequences,  on  the  other,  which  must  necessarily 
be  produced  by  neglecting  them;   and  above  all,  he 
would   have    designated    the   church   courts,   from 
whose    legislative  wisdom   they  should     proceed. 
Nothing  of  all  this  has  he  done;  and  the  fact  that 


87 

he  i\Rs  not,  is  most  decisive  evidence,  that  Dr.  M. 
rests  his  argument  upon  a  mere  assumption. 

Further,   it  is  evident   that  the  scriptures  have 
constructed    the   church's    testimony  on  very  dif- 
ferent principles.      Her  influence   is  to   be  purely 
moral,    and   must   derive   its    efficiency    from    the 
divine  blessing.     All  human  agents  are  secondary. 
God  sustains  the  operation  of  his  scheme  of  redeem- 
ing love  by  the  power  of  his  Spirit.     To  mould 
human  hearts  anew,  is  not  a  task  for  human  hands. 
The  Ethiopian  might  first  change  his  skin,  or  the 
leopard  his  spots.      The  Lord  Jesus  has  sent  forth 
his  Spirit,  to  convince  the  world  of  sin,  of  right- 
eousness,   and    of  judgment;  which  are  the  great 
moral    subjects  belonging  to   the    gospel.       What 
higher,  what  better,  what  more  effectual  testimony 
to  truth  can  be  desired?     In  the  apostolic  age,  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles  received  the  gospel  as  thus  at- 
tested, and  that  too  under  circumstances  far  more 
forbidding  and  difficult  than  ours  can  be. 

The  subordinate  agents  are  presented  to  us,  as 
operating  under  laws  equally  simple.  Ministers 
are  required  to  search  the  scriptures  diligently, 
honestly,  and  prayerfully,  and  to  go  forth  with  a 
*'Thus  saith  the  Lord.''  Christians,  in  every  situ- 
ation,  must  have  the  truth  deposited  in  their  hearts, 
out  of  which  are  the  issues  of  life.  Their  walk  and 
conversation  must  be  their  testimony,  by  being  a 
visible  and  consistent  exhibition  of  righteousness 
peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghast,"  which  are  the 
moral  qualities  of  the  personal  characters  of  Christ's 


88 

siJi'vants; — alid  says  Paul,  "he  that,  in  these  things, 
serveth  Christ,  is  acceptable  to  God,  and  approved 
of  men.'' ^     They  must  let  their  "light  so  shine  be- 
fore men,"  that  men  may  see  their ^oo^  works^^xi^ 
glorify  their  Father  which  is  in  heaven:  or  as  Peter 
expresses  it, — "Having  your   conversation   honest 
among  the  gentiles;  that  whereas  they  speak  against 
you   as  evil  doers,  they  may  by  your  good  works 
ivhich  they  shall  behold,  glorify  God  in  the  day 
of  visitation.^'     Will  Dr.  M.  say,  that  this  is  not 
bearing   testimony  to  truth,  and    that  before    the 
world  too?     Can  any  one  say,  that  thus  divine  truth 
cannot  be  handed  down  from  age  to  age?     Or  can 
it  be  denied,  that,  even  now,  with  all  our  voluntary 
associations,  this  is  a  better  and  more  efifectual  tes- 
timony, than    all    the    ecclesiastical   creeds   in    the 
world?     Can   ministers  ever  be  more  useful,  than 
when,  in  their  pulpits,  or  "from  house  to  house," 
tliey  preach  the  simple  things  of  the  gospel,  in  the 
name  of  their  Master?     Do  not  christians  accom- 
plish every  thing  by  their  frank  conversation  and 
consistent  example?    Are  not  worldlings  thus  induc- 
ed to  commend  and  imitate  them,  and  are  not  the 
minds  of  the  rising  generation,  thus  formed  and  cul- 
tivated?    Do  not  professors,   and  that  too  just  in 
proportion  as  they  make  a  noise  about  their  creeds, 
injure  their  master's  cause  more  deeply  by  their  un- 
holy tempers,  and  unworthy  lives,  than  by  any  thing 
else  they  may  do?     And  have  not  the  contentions 
about  the  different  creeds,   entailcJ  more  practical 


89 

injury  to  the  cause  of  truth,  than  can  be  compensa- 
ted by  any  of  their  supposable  advantages? 

It  seems  necessary  to  observe,   step  by  step,  that 
the  doctrine  of  ''voluntary  associations"  has  chang- 
ed the  whole  face  of  the  church ;  and  that  it  is  only 
in  relation  to  this  unhappy  state  of  things,  that  any 
of  the ''important  ends,'^  referred  to  in  the  "Lecture'' 
or  "Letter,"  are  at  all  to  be  presumed.      This  doc- 
trine   being    admitted,   the    question    immediately 
arises,  how  shall  these  voluntary  associations  exert 
their  ecclesiastical    influence?     In   other  words,  it 
may  instantly  be  asked,  how  now  shall  the  king- 
dom of  God  come  with  "ohservation^^ — with  ex- 
ternal pomp  and  parade?  But  deny  this  doctrine, — 
let  the  church  resume  her  simple  form,  and  lay  off 
the  gorgeous  apparel   of  a  civil  jurisprudence;  let 
evangelical  law  have  the  force  which  Jesus  ascribed 
to  it,  when  he  said,  "the  kingdom  of  God  is  within 
you;"  and  a  moral  influence  is  immediately  formed, 
by  which  every  believer  becomes,  in  his  own  place, 
a  glorious  witness  for  the  truth.     This  moral  influ- 
ence, employed   and  seconded  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
is  the  very  way  by  which  the  church   can,  and   by 
which  alone  she  can,  fulfil  every  great  purpose,  and 
faithfully  discharge  every  great  duty,  for  which  she 
was  instituted.      And  by  this  means  she  does  these 
things  now,  and  not  by  her  ecclesiastical  creeds. 
Passing  by  these  arbitrary  lines,  which  vohmtary 
associations  have  drawn,  her  members  now  meet  to- 
gether   on  common    christian   ground;    and    under 
auspices  so  purely  moral,  the  Bible  and  the  living 
8* 


90 

teacher,  the  great  witnesses  for  truth,  are  carrying 
the  gospel  from  city  to  city,  and  from  nation  to 
nation. 

But  the  church  is   a   social  body,  and  her  social 
testimony  is  the  object  of  inquiry.      The  preceding 
observations  may  be  considered   as   in  this  respect 
deficient,  and  amounting  to  nothing  in  the  present 
controversy.     Though  I  should  feel  such  a  criticism 
to  be  trifling,  yet  the  general  principle  may  be  ap- 
plied most  distinctly  to  the  social  movements  of  the 
church.      Paul,  when   writing  to  the   Corinthians, 
severely  censured  them,  because  they  acted  on  sec- 
tarian, rather  than  on  moral,  principles.     One  said — 
^'I  am  of  Paul,''  and  thus  ht  bore  his  testimony  to 
truth.     Another  said — ''I  am  of  Apollos,"  and  thus 
he  bore  his  testimony  to  truth.      Another  said — "I 
am  of  Cephas,"  and  thus  he  bore  his  testimony  to' 
truth.     Another,  far  purer  than  all  the  rest,  said — 
"I  am  of  Christ,"  and  thus  he  bore  his  testimony  to 
truth.      Now  did  any   of  them  bear    testimony  to 
truth,  by  their  party  distinctions?     Or  can  we  sup- 
pose, that  the  whole  together,  made  the  church  the 
depository^   or  the  guardian^  or  the   witness  of 
truth?     Alas,  no.     Paul  tells  us  that  there  was  no 
spirituality  about  such  proceedings, — and  yet  truth  is 
spiritual.      He  tells  us,  that  they  were  carnal, — and 
yet  truth  is  not  carnal.      He  tells  us,  that  they  were 
babes, — and  yet,  directed  by  the  truth,  they  might 
have  been    full   grown    men;    those   perfect   ones, 
among  whom  he  might  have  spoken  wisdom.     I 
know  it  may  be  said,  the  cases  are  not  parallel;  for 


91 

such  a  reply  is  very  common.      But  why  are  they 
not  parallel?     The  Corinthians  had  some  different 
ideas  or  forms,  or  ceremonies,  when  they  maintain- 
ed such  different  pretensions.      There  was  some  rea> 
son   why  they  thus    preferred  different  ministers. 
They  could  say  as  much  in  their  own  defence,  as 
modern  sects  can  say  in  their  defence.     They  lived 
in  a  very  remote  age;   we  cannot  enter  into  their 
feelings,   nor  fully  define  their  difference;  and  be- 
sides, we  have  an  apostolical  sentence  against  them. 
Now  the  different  sects  are  continually  moving  in 
the  whirlwind  of  their  own  passions;  their  prejudi- 
ces are  in  full  force;  and  their  party  distinctions  are 
kept  in  full  view.     And  here  is  all   the  difference. 
As  little  testimony  to  truth  is  afforded  now,  as  then. 
For  how  canpresbyteriaoism,  episcopacy,  and  inde- 
pendency be  all  true?    How  can  Calvinism,  arminian- 
ism,  hopkinsianism,  &c.  be  all  true?     Or  how  can 
their  ecclesiastical  creeds,  embracing  their  respec- 
tive peculiarities,  be  all  a  testimony  to  truth? 

Again.      The  Corinthians  behaved  in  a  scandalous- 
manner,  in  regard  of  the  exercise  of  their  spiritual 
gifts.     When  they  came  together,  every  one  had  a 
psalm,  had  a  doctrine,  had  a  tongue,  had  a  revelation, 
had  an  interpretation.     And  what  sort  of  moral  im^ 
pression  would  this  confusion  have  made  upon  a  by- 
stander?    Should  not  an  unbeliever,  or  one  unlearn- 
ed, have  said  that  they  were  mad?     But  if  they  had 
exercised  their  spiritual  gifts  in  a  decorous  and  con- 
sistent manner,  then  an  unbeliever  should  have  been 
convinced  of  all,  should  have  been  judged  of  all;  thus 


92 

the  secrets  of  his  heart  would  have  been  made  mani- 
fest, and  so  falling  down,  he  would  have  worshipped 
God,  and  reported  that  God  was  among  them  of  a 
truth.  Such  is  the  moral  influence  which  the  church 
exerts,  when  she  acts  consistently  with  the  principles 
of  her  own  institution.  Thus,  in  her  public  assem- 
blies, she  bears  testimony,  effectual  testimony,  to  the 
truth  as  it  is  in  .Tesus;  and  the  world  feels  the  force 
of  what  she  says:  while,  with  this  ecclesiastical  in- 
fluence, exerted  by  voluntary  associations  as  such, 
and  in  defence  of  their  own  peculiarities,  the  world 
has  been  continually  at  war.  I  do  not  say,  that  the 
world  is  not  corrupted,  or  that  her  sons  are  ready 
to  receive  religious  truth;  but  I  do  say,  that  these 
sectarian  divisions  have  afforded  to  unbelievers  a 
most  powerful  argument  against  religious  truth, 
while  these  contending  parties  bear  their  lordly  and 
contradictory  testimonies  in  her  favour. 

The  public  and  accredited  ordinances  of  the 
church— what  is  the  principle  of  their  operation? 
What  is  the  value  of  the  sacramental  supper,  if  its 
moral  references  be  not  understood,  or  if  a  spiritual 
influence  be  not  realized?  Of  what  other  use  is  bap- 
tism, than  as  it  is  an  external  symbol  of  a  moral  bene- 
fit? What  rational  calculations  caji  a  preacher  form, 
when  he  does  not  feel  himself  to  be  a  moral  agent, 
under  the  superintending  care  of  the  Holy  Spirit? 
Or  why  have  we  public  assemblies  at  all,  convened 
for  any  public  celebrations,  if  it  be  not  to  throw  spi- 
ritual things  into  a  visible  form,  and  exhibit  a  moral 
Spectacle,  which  may  charm  the  eyes  and  convince 


93 

the  understandings  of  those  who  see?  Why  that 
profession?  Why  those  touching  appeals?  Whence, 
the  savoury  impressions  that  are  left?  Is  not  the 
church  in  all  this  a  depository  of  truth?  In  all  this 
does  she  bear  no  testimony  to  truth?  Is  the  practi- 
cal demonstration,  that  God  is  in  the  midst  of  his 
own  sanctuary,  to  pass  for  nothing? 

In  addition,  it  may  be  asked,  how  did  the  primi- 
tive church  fulfil  the  great  purposes  of  her  institu- 
tion? Neither  in  the  apostolical  age,  nor  until  three 
centuries  had  rolled  past,  had  she  any  such  document, 
as  that  which,  in  this  controversy,  is  denominated 
an  ecclesiastical  creed.  This  is  a  demonstrable  fact, 
according  to  all  the  evidence  which  I  have  seen. 
Was  the  primitive  church  not  a  depository  oi  iruih} 
Did  she  bear  no  testimony  to  truth?  Was  not  truth 
transmitted  from  age  to  age?  How  did  she  dis- 
charge her  important  duties?  How  did  it  happen 
that  she  preserved  the  same  faith,  as  though  she  in- 
habited a  single  house,  and  had  but  one  heart  and  one 
soul?  How  did  it  happen,  that,  ^^with  all  perfect  har- 
mony," she  proclaimed,  taught,  and  handed  down 
the  faith,  as  though  she  had  but  one  mouth?  How 
did  it  happen,  that  her  ministers  could  compare  the 
preaching  of  the  truth  to  the  sun,  shining  one  and 
the  same  throughout  the  whole  world?  How  did 
it  happen,  that  ''the  basis  of  her  communion  was 
laid  so  broad,  in  the  vital  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
that  all  who  'held  the  head,'  in  whatever  spot  of 
the  globe,  might  join,  as  tJiey  had  opportunity,  in 
the  reciprocation  of  christian  kindness,  and  the  en- 


94 

joyment  of  christian  privileges?''  Such  is  not  tlie 
condition  of  the  church  now,  with  all  her  creeds. 
She  bears  no  such  harmonious  testimony  to  the 
truth.  An  '^unbeliever,"  or  <*one  unlearned,'' 
might  suppose  that  the  different  denominations  wor- 
ship different  gods.  These  facts  are  surely  sufficient 
to  expose  the  fallacy  of  Dr.  M's  reasonings  on  this 
subject;  and  to  show,  that  ecclesiastical  creeds,  in- 
stead of  making  the  church  a  depository  of  truth,, 
make  her  the  depository  of  sectarian  dogmas;  or, 
that,  instead  of  elevating  her  as  a  witness  for  truth, 
they  divide  her  members  into  so  many  parties,  hold- 
ing testimonies  against  each  other. 

The  same  argument  applies  with  equal  force  to 
another  * 'important  end,"  which  Dr.  M.   supposes 
to   be  obtained    by  ecclesiastical  creeds;  i.  e.  that 
they  are  so  many  tributes  to  truth   and    candour^ 
which  the  different  churches  owe  to  one  another. 
This  seemingly  valuable  purpose,  on  which  Dr.  M. 
descants  in  his  ''Lecture,"  with  very  great  confi- 
dence, amounts,  as  I  understand  it,  to  this: — when 
one  party  says,  I   am   of  Paul, — another,  I   am   of 
Cephas,— another,  I  am  of  Apollos, — and  another^ 
I  am  of  Christ,  truth  and  candour  require  each  par- 
ty to  explain  to  the  others,  what  its  peculiarities  are. 
All  this  may  do  very  well,  if  there  was  not  a  pre- 
vious question  to  be  decided; — is  it  spiritual,  oris 
it  carnal,  is  it  wise,  or  is  it  childish,  to  divide  the 
church  into   parties,    or  voluntary    associations? — 
If  this  be  not  right,  then  there  is  no  use  in  talking 
about   a   tribute  to  truth  and   candour,  resting  on 


95 

the  presumption  that  it  is  right. — I  believe  this  is 
logical. 

There  is  however  a  second  question,  which  fol- 
lows on  the  admission  of  the  antiscriptural  premi- 
ses, just  stated: — are  these  creeds  really  a  tribute  to 
truth  and  candour?     Do  the  different  churches  real- 
ly adhere  to  their  respective  creeds?     Have  they 
settled  among  themselves  what  their  creeds  mean? 
As  far  as  I  am  acquainted  with  the  various  denomi- 
nations, I  know  not  one  whose  members  are  not 
differing  with  each  other  about  the  articles  of  their 
creed?     How  many  matters,  contained  in  the  West- 
minster confession  of  faith,  are  not  subjects  of  con- 
troversy among  presbyterians?     Are  the    "thirty- 
nine  articles"  caivinistic  or  arminian?  And  so  on.^- 
When  I   look  back,  over  the   history   of  subscrip- 
tion to  church  articles,  I  do  not  find  any  difference. 
The  members  of  the  council  of  Nice  were  not  satis- 
fied w^ith  their  own  creed.      The  members  of  the 
Westminster  assembly  would    not  subscribe   their 
creed.     Bishop  Burnet  says, — ^'The  requiring  sub- 
scription to  the  thirty-nine  articles,  is  a  great  impo- 
sition: I  believe  them  all  myself;  but  as  those,  about 
original  sin  and  predestination,  might  be  expressed 
more  unexceptionably,  so  I  think  it  is  a  better  way, 
to  let-such  matters  continue  to  be  still  the  standard 
of  doctrine,  with  some  few  corrections,  and  to  cen- 
sure those  who  teach  any  contrary  tenets,   than  to 
oblige  all,  that  serve  in  the    church,   to    subscribe 
them:  the  greater  part  subscribe  ivithout  ever  ex- 
amining ihein;  and  others  do  it  because  they  must 


96 

do  it,  though  they  can  hardly  satisfy  their  consci- 
ences ahout  some  things  in  them."  Lord  Chatham 
said,  in  the  face  of  the  bishops  of  his  day — ^'We 
have  calvinistical  articles,  an  arminian  clergy,  and 
a  popish  liturgy."  Now  if  these  things  be  so,  how 
can  these  ecclesiastical  creeds  be,  in  any  sense,  tri- 
butes to  truth  and  candour?  Cannot  every  reader 
see,  that  there  is  a  palpable  sophism  in  Dr.  M's  ar- 
.gument? 

I  here  close  my  observations  upon  the  ^'important 
ends,"  which  Dr.  M.  has  ascribed  to  ecclesiastical 
creeds.  The  whole  argument,  if  I  mistake  not,  may 
be  found  in  the  '^Remarks,"  arranged  under  some 
of  the  diflferent  articles  of  discussion  there  consider- 
ed. It  was  intentional  on  my  part,  that  Dr.  M's 
arrangement  was  not  followed.  Having  formed  my 
own  opinions,  without  reading  any  of  the  contro- 
versial pieces,  which  have  been  written  on  the  gen- 
eral subject,  excepting  Dunlop's  work  and  Dr.  JVPs 
*  ^Lecture,"  I  penned  my  own  reasons  and  argu- 
ments for  the  doctrine,  of  whose  truth  I  am  every 
day  more  and  more  convinced.  And  if  Dr.  M.  had 
left  the  whole  controversy  with  ^Hhe  sober  and 
thinking  part  of  the  community,"  who,  he  suppo- 
ses, neither  need  nor  wish  ^*a  continuance  of  the  dis- 
cussion," I  should  have  left  it  there  too.  But  as 
he  was  not  willing  to  leave  the  subject,  as  far  as  it 
had  been  argued,  with  the  good  sense  of  the  com- 
munity, which  he  so  confidently  bespeaks  in  his 
own  favour,  the  respondent  feels  no  reluctance  t» 
plead  the  cause  at  the  bar  of  the  public  mind.   There 


97 

k  must  finally  be  settled.  No  church  court,  in  a 
free  land,  is,  or  can  be,  competent  to  decide  the 
question  in  controversy.  And  society,  at  present, 
is  in  a  situation  so  peculiar,  that,  it  appears  to  me, 
Dr.  M.  is  prophesying  "smooth  things"  at  a  ven- 
ture.—I  shall  wait  in  patience,  and,  I  trust,  with 
good  humour,  for  the  verdict  of  the  public  mind^, 
whatever  it  may  be. 

SECTION  VL 

Br.  M.  has  thought  proper  to  appear  as  the  advo- 
cate of  the  synod  of  Philadelphia;  and    to  justify 
their  late  proceedings,  without  any  modification  or 
reserve.      He  seems,  from  motives  of  delicacy,  to 
have  felt  considerable  hesitation  about  undertaking 
the  task.     But  as  a  prominent  controversialist,  in 
relation  to  the  general  subjects  involved  in   those 
proceedings,  he  has  done  right  not  to  be  too  fastidi- 
ous, and  in  waving  considerations  of  that  kind.   His 
correspondent  had  transmitted  correct  information, 
when  he  reported,  that  the   conduct  of  the  synod 
was  esteemed  by  many  as  high-handed  and  tyranni- 
cal.     "The  fundamental  principles  of  church  gov- 
.  ernment,"  by  which  such  judicial  acts  are  to   be 
.sustained,  really  need  eclaircissement;  and  certain- 
ly, no  one,  it  is  to  be  presumed,  could   be  a  more 
competent  expounder  of  ecclesiastical  law  than  the' 
professor  of  church  government!     Falling  so  pre- 
cisely within  his  official  range,  and  requiring,  in  this 
free  land,  as  luminous  demonstration  as  the  creed 
9 


98 

system  itself,  Dr.  M.  is  not  at  all  to  be  censured  as 
stepping  out  of  his  sphere.  Moreover,  when  the 
abstract  case  was  carried  up  to  the  assembly  by  the 
presbytery  of  Baltimore,  every  member  of  the  as* 
sembly  fully  understood  to  what  it  referred.  All 
parties  knew  that  it  grew  out  of  the  publication  of 
my  *  ^Remarks,"  which  were  written  in  reply  to 
the  principles  of  Dr.  M's  ^'Lecture."  When  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  devise  a  remedy  which 
might  cover  the  case,  Dr.  Miller  was  made  chair- 
man of  that  committee;  and  thus  my  opponent  be- 
came my  judge.  1  then,  for  my  own  part,  con- 
sider it  to  be  quite  consistent  that  Dr.  M.  should 
become  the  champion,  and  advocate  his  own  mea- 
sures. 

In  undertaking  to  discuss  this  unpleasant  subject, 
it  may  not  be  amiss  to  detail  the  circumstances  of 
the  case. — Mr.   McLean  and   myself  formerly  be- 
longed to  a  presbytery,  which  was  in  connexion  with 
the  Associate  Reformed   Church;  and  which,  after 
the   union  between   the    General    Synod    of  that 
church  and  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyte- 
rian Church,  chose  to  retain  its  own  distinct  organi- 
zation, under  the  name  of  the  Second  Presbytery  of 
Philadelphia.     This  presbytery,   in   a   short  time, 
"judging  the  interest  of  the  churches  under  their 
care,  no  longer  to  require  their  continuation  as  a 
presbytery" — "unanimously  agreed  to  suspend  their 
functions  as  a  presbytery,  from   and  after  the  9th 
day  of  April,  1825;''  and  ^^granted  testimonials  to 
their  members,  licentiates  and  candidates,  to  become 


99 

connected  with  such  presbyteries  belonging  to  tht- 
Oeneral  Assembly  as  they  might  desire."  These 
testimonials  were  unhesitatingly  given  to  us  by  our 
brethren,  though  they  were  fully  apprized  of  our 
sentiments  on  the  subject  of  creeds. 

Our  certificate  was  presented  to  the  presbytery 
<Df  Baltimore,  to  which  our  application  was  made  at 
our  own  choice.     An  opposition   was  quickly,  and 
somewhat  unexpectedly,  started;   and  our  creden- 
tials were  not  sufficient  for  the  purposes  for  which 
they  had  been  given.     In  a  body,  where  formalin 
tie^  pass  for  so   much,  it  appeared  strange  to  see 
one  court,  sitting  in  judgment  upon  the  official  pro- 
ceedings of  another  court,  which  had  been  entirely 
its  equal     An  overt-act,   it  may  indeed  be  said, 
had  been  committed  in  the  mean  time,  by  the  pub- 
lication of  the  '^Remarks."     But  then  the  substan- 
tial form  of  any  crime,  which  that  act  implied,  had, 
according  to  the  representations  which  have  often 
been  made,  existed  long  before  the  second  presby- 
tery  of  Philadelphia  h^d  been  dissolved^  and  thai 
too  within  the  knowledge  of  both  courts,  and  of  the 
whole  ecclesiastical   association  to  which  they  be- 
longed.    The    assembly,    however,     has    decided 
«ince,  that  the  presbytery  had  the  privilege  to  de- 
cline receiving  us;— and  that  decision  who  may  dis- 
pute? 

The  plan  on  which  the  presbytery  of  Bal  timore, 
immediately  began  to  deliberate,  was  to  refer  the 
■application  to    the  General  Assembly    for  advice. 


100 

This  we  readily  foresaw  would  involve  the  church 
courts  in  controversy,  as  facts  have  since  evinced. 
And  as  we  could  easily  forbear  with  our  brethren, 
if  they  could  forbear  with  us,  we  shrunk  from  any 
agency  in  so  unhappy  a  transaction;  and  preferred 
to  stand  alone,  the  charge  of  our  Master's  provi- 
dence, rather  than  to  become  in  any  measure  acces^ 
sary  to  it.  Consequently  we  deliberately  and 
earnestly  protested  against  the  adoption,  of  what 
we  supposed  to  be  so  injurious  a  course.  Finding 
this  in  vain,  we  then  desired  our  certificate  to  be 
returned  to  us;  and  addressed  to  the  brethren  the 
following  note,  in  the  hope  thereby  to  stay  any  fur^ 
ther  proceedings, 

'*'To  the  Moderator  and  other  brethren  of  the. 
Presbytery  of  Baltimore. 

The  subscribers,  unwilling  to  involve  themselves 
in  any  judicial  litigations,  and  the  courts  of  God'is 
house  in  any  embittered  discussions,  respectfully 
request  that  their  certificate  may  be  returned  to 
them. — They  cannot  consent  to  refer  the  case  to  the 
General  Assembly:  they  cannot  consent  that  their 
names  should  be  held  up  any  longer  before  the 
public,  as  applicants  for  admission  into  the  presby- 
tery; nor  can  they  consent  to  be  received,  even 
with  their  certificate,  but  on  the  most  unequivocal 
terms.  Should  the  Presbytery  resolve  on  any 
other  course,  or  refuse  to  return  them  their  certifi- 
cate, the  subscribers  do  hereby  distinctly  decla^e.^ 


101 

that  they    do    not  hold    themselves  in-  any  form 
amenable  to  the  authority  of  presbytery. 

John  M.  Duncan, 

C.  G.  McLean. 
May  nth,  1825. 

« 
The  certificate  was  returned.     The  proceedings 

of  the  presbytery,  however,  did  not  terminate. 
With,  or  without,  our  consent,  the  subject  they 
would,  and  did,  carry  up  to  the  General  Assembly, 
in  the  form  of  an  abstract  question;  and  thus  those 
embittered  discussions  were  ensured,  which  wo 
thought  it  desirable  to  avoid.  In  the  mean 
time,  by  withdrawing  our  certificate  from  the  pres- 
bytery, and  refusing  to  be  a  party  to  any  litigation 
before  other  church  courts,  we  considered  ourselves 
to  have  withdrawn  from  our  ecclesiastical  connexion, 
diS  peaceably  as  we  could,  and  in  the  most  formal 
manner  the  nature  of  the  case  would  admit. 
The  application  never  was  renewed;  it  was  never 
transferred  to  any  other  presbytery;  neither  we, 
nor  our  people,  made  any  reference,  nor  protest, 
nor  appeal  in  any  form,  by  which  the  connexion 
could  be  sustained. 

The  Assembly,  taking  up  the  overture  thus  made 
to  them,  referred  it  to  a  committee,  of  which,  as 
has  already  been  observed,  Dr.  Miller  was  made 
chairman.  This  committee  reported  sundry  reso- 
lutions, which  are  minute  enough  in  their  provi- 
sions to  show,  that  the  w-hole  circumstances  in 
which  the  reference  originated^  had  been  fully  can- 


vassed.  They  were  evidently  designed  to  make 
way  for  the  interference  of  the  Synod,  on  the  pre- 
sumption that  the  presbytery  was  * 'incompetent  to 
conduct  process  in  an  impartial  and  efficient  man- 
ner."  Under  cover  of  these  resolutions,  judgin*:; 
from  one  of  the  papers  laid  on  the  table  of  the  Sy- 
nod, subsequent  transactions  were  commenced,  and 
carried  to  an  issue,  suited  to  another  age  and  ano- 
ther country;  and  as  unbefitting  the  ministry  of 
reconciliation,  as  they  are  inconsistent  with  biblical 
law. 

When  the  Synod  met,  we  appeared,  not  as  mem- 
bers, but  as  individuals;  who,  supposing  themselves 
to  have  been  injuriously  treated,  had  previously 
withdrawn  from  the  ecclesiastical  connexion,  and 
were  yet  willing  to  enter  into  any  conference  with 
their  brethren  about  any  plan  of  a  re-union,  which 
would  protect  their  consciences.  A  committee  was 
appointed  to  confer  with  us,  who  treated  us  like 
brethrefi;  and  on  our  interview  with  whom,  we 
never  can  reflect  but  with  the  most  unfeigned  plea- 
sure. For  myself  I  speak — I  did  most  distinctly 
inform  the  committee  that  I  did  not  consider  my- 
self as  a  member  of  the  Synod;  I  did  as  explicitly 
r.iake  a  like  declaration  on  the  floor  of  the  Synod 
Itself,  and  that  too  before  any  committee  was  ap- 
pointed. Some  of  the  members  expressed  the 
same  views,  while  others  dissented;  and  though 
the  question  wasagitated,  whether  we  w^ere,  or  were 
not,  members  of  the  court,  it  was  never  synodically 
i^letermined;  but  by  a  mere  gratuitous  assumption  an 


103 

the  part  of  the  majority,  'the  proceedings  were 
zealously  and  unrelentingly  conducted  to  their 
close,  as  though  we  had  belonged  to  a  presbytery, 
and  were  thus  entitled  to  the  privileges,  and  amena- 
ble to  the  authority,  of  the  Synod. 

The  committee  reported  a  resolution,  which  ac- 
cording to  the  reasoning  in  the  preamble,  was 
based  upon  views  which  they  thus  expressed. 
^^Your  committee — are  entirely  of  opinion  that 
forbearance  will  be  the  duty  of  Synod  in  their 
case.'^  The  arguments,  for  and  against,  were  di- 
rected to  this  point.  And  Dr.  M.  who,  it  is  to  be 
presumed,  understands  the  whole  matter,  says,— 
*Hhe  Synod  passed  a  vote,  which  most  imequivo- 
mlly  expressed,  as  the  opinion  of  a  large  majority, 
that  he  (Mr.  D. )  could  not  regularly  retain  his  con- 
nexion with  the  Synod,  in  consistency  with  the 
opinions  he  had  avowed."  When  then  the  '^re- 
port" was  rejected,  or  not  adopted,  the  Synod  re- 
fused to  forbear  with  us  and  our  opinions.  For- 
bearance being  denied  to  us,  what  could  we  do? 
We  wished  no  further  conference  with  the  Synod, 
as  our  opinions  could  not  be  surrendered,  and  we 
saw  no  other  alternative.  For  myself  I  ao-ain 
speak— I  once  more  informed  the  Synod  that  I  did 

not  consider  myself  as  a  member  of  the  Synod 

that  I  came  there  for  the  purpose  of  brotherly  con- 
ference— and  that  being  so  injuriously  treated,  I 
should  again  withdraw. 

There   had   been    another   resolution    proposed, 
whi«h  in  all  probability  would  have  been  called  up 


104 

next,  and  which,  no  douht,  will  be  thought  by 
many,  d  fine  ecclesiastical  measure,  minglirigagreat 
deal  of  gentleness  with  a  great  deal  of  dignity.  It 
is  as  follows: — ^'Now  then,  that  this  Synod  may 
perform  its  constitutional  duty,  and  may  know 
whether  the  said  Rev.  John  M.  Duncan,  and  Rev. 
Charles  G.  McLean  ought  to  be  attached  to  any  of 
the  presbyteries  under  the  care  of  this  Synod; — 
Resolved.,  that  each  of  them  be  asked,  by  the 
Moderator,  if  he  still  adheres  to  the  profession  of 
faith,  which  he  made  at  the  time  of  answering  the 
formula  of  questions  for  ministers  at  their  ordina- 
tion,' which  were  proposed  to  him  by  the  presby- 
tery which  ordained  him;  and  if  he  is  now  willing 
to  be  attached  to  any  one  of  the  presbyteries  under 
the  care  of  the  General  Assembly,  as  a  minister  of 
the  gospel,  subject  to  the  established  constitution  of 
the  presbyterian  church  in  the  United  States  of 
America?" 

To  this  resolution  I  should  not  have  made  a  sin- 
gle allusion,  had  it  not  been  printed.  But  as  it  is 
before  the  public,  I  shall  make  a  passing  remark  or 
two. — I  am  not  sure,  for  my  own  part,  that  I  fully 
understand  it.  What  does  the  ^'profession  of  faith," 
of  which  it  speaks,  mean?  Was  it  intended  to  ask 
us  whether  we  had  altered  our  views  on  the  great 
doctrines  of  the  gospel?  Our  orthodoxy  was  not 
questioned  by  the  Synod,  so  far  as  we  know.  The 
committee  said  in  their  report,  that  they  felt  them- 
selves warranted  to  state,  that  we  entertained  no 
opinions  materially  different  from  those  exhibited 


105 

in  the  * 'standards."  With  this  interpretation,  the 
resolution  was  altogether  irrelevant  to  the  matter  in 
hand.  The  subject  which  the  Synod  had  before 
them,  merely  covered  our  ideas  of  the  illegality  of 
any  ecclesiastical  control  over  human  consciences: 
and  of  course  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  general 
"profession  of  faith,"  made  at  the  time  of  ordina- 
tion. 

Was  the  resolution  intended  to  obtain  a  promise 
of  unequivocal  subjection  to  the  constitution  of  the 
presbyterian  church?  This  we  had  declared  we 
could  not  give  them,  by  every  step  we  had  taken, 
and  by  our  interview  with  the  committee.  For- 
bearance  might  have  been  asked,  should  have 
been  cheerfully  extended,  and  was  actually  proffer- 
ed. That  is,  we  should  have  peacefidly  suffered 
the  brethren  to  have  carried  out  their  rules,  on  their 
own  responsibility  to  the  Master;  and  should  have 
acquiesced  in  their  measures,  as  far  as  we  conscien- 
tiously could  have  done  it.  Might  the  synod  then 
abruptly  turn  round,  and  ask  the  entire  surrender 
of  our  principles  to  the  arbitrary  laws  of  a  sect? 

But  the  question  further  demanded,  whether  we 
were  "willing  to  be  attached  to  anyone  of  the  presby- 
teries under  the  care  of  the  General  Assembly?" 
What  does  this  mean?  Was  it  their  design  to  separate 
us  by  way  of  neutralizing  our  heresy?  We  heard  some 
such  proposition  out  of  doors.  And  were  the  mem= 
bers  of  the  synod  proprietors  of  the  soil,  and  could 
they  send  its  tenants  where  they  pleased,  without 
consulting  their  gwn  inclinations  and  feelings?  Thij^ 


106 

would  not  only  have  required  the  surrender  of  ou? 
opinions,  but  it  would  have  made  our  condition 
worse  than  it  originally  was.  For,  after  the  disso^ 
lution  of  the  second  presbytery  of  Philadelphia,  we 
might  have  applied  to  any  presbytery  we  pleased. 
Our  application  to  the  presbytery  of  Baltimore  was 
a  mere  matter  of  our  own  choice,  which  we  were 
under  no  obligation  to  have  made;  and  which  that 
presbytery  had  no  right  to  use,  as  throwing  us  under 
their  power.  Some  calculations  of  the  kind  here 
supposed,  I  should  also  infer  from  Dr.  M's  reason- 
ings; for  he  intimates  that  a  majority  would  speedily 
have  been  formed  in  our  favour,  had  we  been  at- 
tached to  the  presbytery  of  Baltimore.  Our  oppo- 
nents are  adroit  politicians,  We  had  never  counted 
"votes ^  nor  arranged  any  plans  on  such  a  principle. 
We  should  simply  have  availed  ourselves  of  the 
privilege  of  respectful  argU7nent,  when  cases 
might  make  it  necessary:- — well  understanding  that 
no  man  benefits  his  own  cause  by  going  too  far 
ahead  of  the  community,  with  which  his  official  re- 
lations may  be  established.  And  should  a  majority 
really  have  been  secured?  Then  the  synod,  by 
adopting  such  a  resolution,  would  have  undertaken 
to  control  the  religious  impressions  of  this  commu- 
nity ;  and  like  the  Superior  of  an  order  of  Jesuits, 
might  have  commanded  their  members  to  go  or 
eome,  at  their  pleasure.  And  are  these  the  princi' 
pies  of  legislation  in  the  nineteenth  century? 

Perhaps    the   question   was  merely  intended  to. 
inquire  whether  in  any  thing  we  had  chajiged  our 


107 

opinions? — Ask  men  whether  they  have  changed 
their  opinions,  since  they  were  boys?  Or  whether, 
after  having  spent  a  dozen  or  more  years,  in  the 
active  employments  of  professional  life,  they  had 
learned  any  thing  new  to  them,  or  had  corrected 
the  erroneous  impressions  of  their  youth?  And 
that  too,  when  the  evidence  of  such  a  change  was 
in  printed  documents;  when  every  man  who  knew 
them  was  a  prompt  and  competent  witness  of  the 
fact.  1  am  forcibly  reminded  of  a  question,  put  to 
an  intelligent  young  man,  by  one  of  these  classical 
assemblies,  when  preparing  to  ordain  him  over  one 
of  their  most  important  congregations — "Pray,  sir, 
who  made  you?^' 

After  all,  it  is  not  of  much  importance,  what  the 
question  really  does  mean,  as  the  synod  did  not  act 
upon  it.  Though  still  it  appears  as  evidence,  that 
other  proceedings  were  contemplated;  that  the 
synod  had  not  finished  with  our  case;  and  that  we 
withdrew,  perhaps,  too  hastily.  When  forbearance, 
however,  was  denied,  all  conference  was  at  an  end, 
and  nothing  but  the  exercise  of  authority  remain- 
ed, which  we  never  attended  on  their  meeting  to 
recognize.  The  resolution,  under  consideration,  or 
some  such  like  measure, — an  equal  sophism  in  judi- 
cial law — was  necessary.  There  was  no  other  in- 
termediate step  between  forbearance  and  a  formal 
trial.  Forbearance  they  denied,  and  a  formal  trial 
they  were  not  competent  to  conduct.  The  trial  of  a 
minister,  by  their  own  constitulional  principles,  must 
commence  in  the  presbytery  to  which  he  belongs, 


108 

atid  the  synod  had  no  '^general"  jurisdiction,  being 
only  a  court  of  review;  and  could  take  no  order  in 
siich  a  case,  unless  in  conformity  with  the  word  of 
God  and  the  established  rules.  Nor  could  the  Ge- 
neral Assembly  empower  them  to  erect  themselves 
into  an  original  court;  for  they  could  legally  give  no 
'^advice,"  nor  ''instruction,"  in  any  case  submitted 
to  them,  but  ''in  conformity  with  the  constitution 
of  the  church."  They  did  not  formally  cast  us 
out;  for  we  saved  them  that  trouble.  But  they  did 
take  our  case  into  their  judicial  consideration, — 
t<3rms  by  which  their  own  book  describes  the  last 
effort  of  removing  an  offence.  There  was  as  much 
said  as  could  have  been  said;  and,  morally  speaking, 
as  much  done  as  could  have  been  done,  had  they 
conducted  a  formal  trial. 

The  circumstance  of  the  synod's  not  formally 
excluding  us,seems  to  have  a  very  important  bearing 
on  the  whole  transaction.  I  have  seen  several  fine 
speculations  in  print  on  this  subject,  brought  for- 
w^ard  with  great  complacency  in  defence  of  the 
synod.  And  some  equally  fine  argument  has  been 
urged  against  us;  because,  that  when  we  withdrew 
from  our  ecclesiastical  connexions,  by  requiring  the 
restoration  of  our  certificate  from  the  presbytery  of 
Baltimore,  it  was  not  formally  done.  And  yet,  in 
such  a  case,  mercy,  which  is  so  closely  allied  to 
forbearance,  and  which  ^uglit  always  to  temper 
juridical  proceedings,  not  only  in  (he  state,  but  more 
especially  in  the  church,  would  award  the  privilege 
to  an  accused  party.     I  pretend  not  to  say  that  we 


109 

w^r^  formally  ejected;  for  the  whole  proceeding 
was  the  most  informal  thing  I  ever  saw;  and  could 
not  have  been  admitted  at  all,  had  we  not  supposed  it 
to  be  founded  on  a  moral  confidence,  which  ought  al- 
ways  to  exist  among  the  ministers  of  a  prince,  whose 
"kingdom  is  not  of  this  world. '^  As  to  the  eject- 
ment, we  had  felt  the  fhurg,  and  did  not  think 
proper  to  wait  for  the  word.  So  far  then,  the  act, 
as  Dr.  M.  says,  was  our  own,  and  it  was  ^ ^prompt- 
ly followed  up,"  as  Dr.  M.  further  observes,  by 
acts  purely  synodical. 

I  was,  for  my  own  part,  perfectly  willing  to 
have  preserved  christian  silence  on  all  these  pro- 
ceedings; and  to  have  left  those  concerned  in  them 
to  the  judgment  of  God,  of  society,  and  of  their 
own  consciences.  But  for  some  reason,  Dr.  M. 
has  felt  it  incumbent  on  him  to  defend  them;  and  it 
devolves,  therefore,  on  me,  to  meet  what  he  has 
N  said.  This  I  shall  do,  so  far  as  I  feel  it  to  be  neces- 
sary, and  leave  the  rest  to  make  any  impression, 
which  it  may  be  capable  of  producing. 

I  must  again  observe,  that  the  whole-  of  Dr.  M's 
argument  rests  upon  a  mere  assumption.  He  takes 
it  for  granted,  that  the  church  has  a  right  to  resolve 
herself  into  a  voluntary  association;  adopt  a  suita- 
ble constitution;  and  judge  of  the  various  circan>- 
stances  of  her  members,  by  laws  of  her  own  enact- 
ing. Now  this  is  the  very  point  in  dispute.  Hence, 
while  on  one  side  a  plea  is  set  up  for  the  simple  do- 
minion of  moral  law,  which  the  Master  has  given; 
on  the  other  much  ingenious  and  plausible  argument 
10 


110 

Is  used,  merely  to  sustain  the  consistency  of  eccle«» 
siastical  law,  or  of  the  sectarian  manuals  of  different 
parties.  Dr.  M.  has  very  skilfully  selected  his 
position,  as  a  controvertist,  on  a  sectarian  sum- 
mit, and  takes  a  commanding  view  from  thence  of 
the  whole  ecclesiastical  field.  Lest  I  may  be  sup- 
posed to  do  him  an  injustice,  let  the  reader  review 
his  argument  for  himself;  and  then  say,  whether  he 
has  found  one  scriptural  principle  of  the  Master's 
kingdom,  or  one  single  line  of  biblical  law,  brought 
forward  in  his  defence  of  the  synod.  And  yet  one 
scriptural  statute,  fairly  and  candidly  applied,  would 
have  been  worth  more  than  the  whole  argument, 
w^iich  he  has  so  carefully  elaborated.  Why  then 
has  he  not  done  this?  Why  did  he  not  carry  us  over 
the  scripture  page,  and  show^  us  '4ine  upon  line,  and 
precept  upon  precept,"  in  favour  of  a  measure,  which 
he  tells  us  was  founded  upon  the  ^'fundamental 
principles  of  church  government?"  Are  not  these 
fundamental  principles  laid  down  in  the  Bible? 
Can  they  not  be  easily  educed, — are  they  not 
always  at  hand?  Particularly  when  it  is  consider- 
ed, that  so  large  a  portion  of  the  New  Testament 
w^as  written  to  meet  the  circumstances  of  times 
greatly  agitated ; — times  when  heretical  sentiments, 
and  heretical  teachers,  so  much  abounded — is  there 
not  one  line,  which  even  the  professor  of  church 
government  could  bring  forward  to  settle  this  dis- 
pute? And  that  too,  when  the  synod,  transcending 
their  ordinary  modes  of  procedure,  and  undertaking 
a  more  ^'general"  superintendence,  were  expressly 


lit 

vequired,  by  their  own  constitution,  to  act  *<in  con- 
formity with  the  word  of  God?"     Is  it  not  stran-e? 
Of  what  amount  is  it  that  the  General  Assemhiy 
had  adopted  certain  resolutions?     Can  the  General 
Assembly  make  laws  to   regulate  God's  house?— 
Were  not  these  resolutions  reported  by  Dr.  M.  him 
self?  And  did  he  collect  them  from  the  sacred  page, 
or  was  he  simply  meeting  a  question  of  ecclesiasti 
cal  politics?     Or  could  the  General  Assembly  em^ 
power  the  synod,  in  conducting  a  more  than  usual- 
ly enlarged  administration,  to  go  aside  of  the  consti- 
tutional  law,  which  required  them  to  act  "in  con- 
formity with  the  word  of  God?"     And  yet,  neither 
Dr.  M.  nor  the  synod,  had  one  single  word  to  bring 
forward  from  the  scriptures.     And  why  all  this  shy- 
ness, or  unwillingness  to  give  us  their  Master's  com- 
mandment?    Why  so  hasty  and  uniform  a  retreat 
into  old  established  habits,  or  sectarian  principles, 
which  the  church  has  outgrown?     I  take  it  to  be  a 
very  plain  fact,  that  if  they  could   plead   scriptural 
law,  they  would  do  it;  and   that  the  very  circum-^ 
stance  of  their  not  so  doing,  after  having  been  so 
frequently  called  upon  to  do  it,  is  full  proof  that  it  is 
not  in  their  power.      And   then  the   embarrassing 
question  stahs  up,  and  with  no  diffident  air,— how 
can  they  declare  their  creed  to  be   a  summary  of 
scriptural  doctrin£s,  when  they  considered  it  to 
require    measures    which    cannot  be   sustained    by 
scriptural    testimony?       Immediately    follows 'the 
more  embarrassing  challenge— "To  the  law,  and  to 


112 

the  testimony,  if  they  speak  not  according  to  this 
word,  it  is  because  there  is  no  light  in  them. " 

It  is  true  that  Dr.  M.  does  sometimes  bring  for- 
ward scriptural  phrases,  in  application  to  some  part 
of  his  argument;  such  as — '^bear  witness  to  the 
truth" — ^  ^contend  earnestly  for  the  faith" — when 
error  ^*comes  in  like  a  flood,"  the  church  must  **lift 
up  a  standard  against  it,"  by  ^^holding  forth  the 
word  of  life" — ^^sound  in  the  faith" — ^^truth  as  it 
is  in  Jesus" — ^ ^teaching  for  doctrines  the  command- 
ments of  men" — **if  any  man  bring  any  other  gos- 
pel unto  you,  than  that  ye  have  received,  let  him  be 
accursed."  But  it  is  manifest  that  they  have  no  ap- 
plication, by  which  the  synod  can  be  relieved;  nei- 
ther would  he  himself  so  use  them.  Now,  under 
such  circumstances,  why  does  Dr.  M.  so  tartly  re- 
proach me,  as  he  does  in  the  following  language: — 
^'Neither  is  it  a  sufficient  answer  to  say,  that  the 
cases  are  not  parallel  in  another  respect: — that  in 
preaching  and  expounding  holy  scripture,  we  do  not, 
either  really  or  virtuall)'^,  set  up  another  rule  of 
faith;  but  that  we  only  explain  and  apply  the  divine 
rule  itself:  whereas,  in  forming  a  confession  of  faith, 
and  in  asking  a  candidate  for  the  ministry  to  adopt 
it,  we  are  not  only  proposing  a  new  rule  of  faith, 
but  even  setting  it  above  the  scriptures.  Mr.  D. 
after  the  most  ample  explanation  and  assurance  has 
been  given  to  the  contrary,  still  insists  on  repre- 
senting my  doctrine  of  creeds  in  this  light;  as  plac- 
ing them  above  the  Bible;  as  giving  them  authori- 
ty to  bind  the  conscience  independently  of  the  Bi- 


113 

bie;  nay,  as  imposing  on  men  an  obligation  to  be- 
lieve that  which  the  Bible  never  taught."  Now, 
most  surely,  I  am  willing  to  believe  the  assurances 
of  my  brethren.  They  are  ^'incapable,  I  am  per- 
suaded, of  designedly  misrepresenting  any  thing." 
But  then,  when  I  look  back  to  the  synod,  or  read 
over  Dr.  M's  defence  of  their  proceedings,  what 
shall  I  do  with  the  facts?  If,  by  the  Bible,  they 
could  not  refuse  forbearance  to  their  brethren,  and 
yet,  according  to  their  standards  they  could,  which, 
I  ask,  is  the  authoritative  book?  Which  has  the 
pre-eminence?  Are  not  the  decisions  of  councils 
elevated  above  the  decisions  of  the  word  of  God? 
The  last  is  my  controversial  weapon — can|Dr.  M. 
turn  its  edge  against  me? 

Thus  say  the  scriptures: — '^Walk  worthy  of  the 
vocation  wherewith  ye  are  called,  with  all  lowliness 
and  meekness;  with  long  suffering,  forbearing 
one  another  in  love;  endeavouring  to  keep  the  uni- 
ty of  the  spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace." — ^^Put  on 
therefore,  as  the  elect  of  God,  holy  and  beloved, 
bowels  of  mercy,  kindness,  humbleness  of  mind, 
meekness,  long  suffering,  forbearing  one  another. " 
*^The  servant  of  the  Lord  must  not  strive,  but  be 
gentle  to  all  men,  apt  to  teach,  patient,  (forbear- 
ing) in  meekness  instructing  those  that  oppose  them- 
selves."— ^'Him  that  is  weak  in  the  faith  receive  ye^ 
but  not  to  doubtful  disputations.^^ — ^^Who  art 
thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant?" — ^^Let 
us  not  therefore  ywfl^g'e  one  another  any  more;  but 

judge  this   rather,  that   no   man   put   a  stumbling 
10* 


114 

block,  or  an  occasion  to  fall,  in  his  brother's  way.'' 
**Let  us  therefore  follow  after  the  things  which 
make  for  peace,  and  things  wherewith  one  may 
edify  another." — *'He  shall  have  judgment  with- 
out mercy,  that  hath  showed  no  mercy;  and  mer- 
cy rejoiceth  against  judgment. " — But  where  should 
I  stop?  There  is  nothing  more  highly  commended, 
more  urgently  pressed,  or  more  frequently  present- 
ed in  the  scriptures,  which  is  the  .book  of  love. 
than  the  social  virtues,  which  should  adorn  every 
christian  man.  How  then  came  the  synod  to  re- 
fuse forbearance  to  their  brethren?  Have  they 
any  decision  of  the  Assembly  to  defend  them? — 
Then  is  not  that  decision  put  above  the  word  of 
God?  Is  there  any  law  of  their  sect  requiring  such 
a  measure?  Then  is  not  their  law  framed  inde" 
pendent  of  the  word  of  God?  Does  their  creed  call 
upon  them  to  believe  such  things  to  be  right?  Then 
docs  not  their  creed  impose  upon  them  that  which 
is  not  in  the  w^ord  of  God? — What  defence  can  pos- 
sibl)^  be  set  up  for  the  synod  on  scriptural  princi- 
ples? Did  they  not  judge,  if  not  formally,  yet 
morally  and  really — did  they  not  judge  their  bre- 
thren, though  the  scriptures  had  peremptorily  forbid- 
den them  so  to  do;  and  though  the  apostle,  with 
4n  indignant  frown,  had  asked — *^who  art  thou  that 
judgest  another  man's  servant?" 

There  is  no  escaping  from  the  preceding  observa- 
tions, by  accusing  me  of  a  forced  interpretation,  in 
applying  the  texts  to  the  case  in  hand.  They  are 
used  in  the  scriptures  in  direct  reference  to  certain 


115 

controversies,  existing  at  the  time  tiiey  were  writ- 
ten; and  they  were  professedly  designed  to  recon- 
cile alienated  brethren,  and  to  correct  the  irregu- 
larities of  their  ecclesiastical  intercourse.  The  Jews 
and  the  gentiles,  in  the  apostolic  age,  seemed  to  be 
in  perpetual  collision;  and  their  contentions  involv- 
ed, both  points  of  evangelical  doctrine  and  princi- 
ples of  external  church  polity.  They  too  had  a  high 
regard  for  established  habits  and  ancient  traditions. 
Their  prejudices  were  strong,  their  passions  quick, 
and  their  jealousies  easily  roused.  Their  fathers 
were  wise,  good,  and  holy  men,  and  their  heredita- 
ry privileges  were  inestimably  precious.  The  di- 
viding lines  between  episcopalians  and  presbyte- 
rians,  between  the  acknowledgment  and  the  rejec- 
tion of  ecclesiastical  creeds,  are  not  more  broad  and 
plain,  than  \vere  the  distinctions  in  those  days.  Hu- 
man nature  is  pretty  much  the  same  in  all  ages,  and 
must  be  controlled  or  regulated  b}^  the  same  moral 
principles.  In  fact,  if  there  were  no  differences, 
where  would  be  the  necessity  or  room  for  forbear- 
ance, or  any  of  the  social  virtues  of  that  class?  So 
that  my  scriptural  quotations  were  fully  as  applica- 
ble to  the  synod,  as  to  any  other  dominant  party 
which  ever  has  existed,  and  render  any  attempt  to 
defend  them,  purely  chimerical.  And  such  volun- 
tary associations  cannot  afford  stronger  evidence  of 
officious  interference  with  spiritual  things,  than 
when  their  sectarian  laws  are  at  variance  with  the 
social  virtues  of  christian  character. 


116 

Neither  may  it  be  said,  that  such  texts  do  not  ap- 
ply to  social  bodies,  but  to  the  private  intercourse  of 
christians.  The  scriptures  make  no  such  distinc- 
tion. Social  bodies  are  as  strictly  required  to  be 
virtuous,  as  individuals  are.  The  Pharisees  do  not 
appear  one  whit  better,  when,  as  rulers,  they  cast 
out  of  the  synagogue,  the  man  ^'who.had  received 
his  sight"  than  they  should  Have  done,,  had  they  in 
their  private  characters  spoken  evil  of  him,  or,  meet- 
ing him  "by  the  way,"  had  crossed  to  the  other  side 
to  avoid  exchanging  looks  or  words.  The  one  sin 
is  perhaps  a  little  more  "splendid"  than  the  other. 
Its  turpitude  may  not  be  so  quickly  seen,  and  its 
evil  consequences  may  be  more  extensive,  and  not 
so  easily  remedied.  But  there  is  no  other  differ- 
ence. That  social  bodies  have  their  peculiarities  I 
readily  admit;  and  so  every  individual  has  his  pe- 
culiarities, both  in  character  and  circumstances;  but 
then  they  must  not  be  opposed  to  social  virtues;  and 
particularly  to  that  class  of  social  virtues,  whose 
very  existence  is  created  by  those  peculiarities. — 
The  synod,  then,  had  their  Master's  commandment 
to  forbear,  and  why  did  they  not  do  it? 

Such  proceedings  would  have  been  condemned  in 
jthe  early  ages  of  Christianity,  degenerate  as  they  are 
represented  to  have  been;  and  that,  too,  after  eccle- 
siastical creeds  had  been  introduced. — ^'I  most  sin- 
cerely wish,"  says  Calvin,  '*that  every  person 
would  observe  the  method  recommended  by  Augus- 
tine, in  his  third  book  against  Maximinus.  For 
with  a  view  to  silence  the  contentions  of  that  here- 


117 

tic  respecting  the  decrees  of  councils,  he  says, — - 
^I  ought  not  to  object  to  you  the  council  of  Nice? 
nor  ought  you  to  object  to  me  the  council  of  Arimi- 
num,  to  preclude  each  other's  judgment  by  a  pre- 
vious decision;  I  am  not  bound  by  the  authority  of 
the  latter,  nor  you  by  that  of  the  former.  Let  cause 
contend  with  cause,  and  argument  with  argument, 
on  the  ground  of  scriptural  authorities,  which  exclu- 
sively belong  to  neither  party,  but  are  common  to 
both.^' 

Such  proceedings  are  equally  inconsistent  with 
the  principles  of  the  Reformation.  Protestants  did 
not  merely  say  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  rule,  but 
their  argument  spread  itself  out  over  all  the  circum- 
stances which  made  the  term  only,  necessary.  They 
reasoned  against  all  other  rules,  and  would  submit 
neither  to  the  civil  arm,  nor  to  ecclesiastical  coun- 
cils, as  pretending  to,  or  really  exercising,  autho- 
rity over  human  consciences.  Indeed,  it  was  im- 
possible that  they  should  reason  on  one  side,  without 
taking  up  the  other.  And  yet,  at  this  late  hour,  the 
synod  founded  their  proceedings  upon  resolutions 
adopted  by  the  General  Assembly,  and  never  pre- 
tended to  advance  any  scriptural  authority  for  what 
they  did.  In  truth,  the  subject  of  forbearance,  is 
merely  the  old  subject  of  toleration  ov6r  again, 
which,  it  might  be  supposed,  had  been  sufficiently 
argued  in  the  church,  to  be  understood  in  the  pre- 
sent day.  It  admits  of,  and  it  call^  for,  precisely 
the  same  train  of  argument.  ' 


118 

Much,  very  much,  do  I  admire  the  following  re- 
marks,  made  by  Augustine,  and  which  are  not  un- 
appropriate  to  the  present  discussion. — ''We  were 
oi  opinion,  that  other  methods  were  to  be  made 
choice  of;  and  that  to  recover  you  from  3'^our  errors, 
we  ought  not  to  persecute  you  with  injuries  and  in- 
vectives, or  any  ill  treatment;  but  endeavour  to 
procure  your  attention,  by  soft  words  and  exhorta- 
tiohs,  which  would  show^  the  tenderness  we  have 
lor  you,  according  to  that  passage  of  holy  writ,-^ 
'The  servant  of  the  Lord  ought  not  to  love  strife 
and  quarrels;  but  to  be  gentle,  affable,  and  patient 
towards  all  mankind,  and  to  reprove  with  modesty 
those  who  differ  from  him  in  opinion.' — Let  them 
only  treat  you  with  rigour,  who  know  not  how  dif- 
ficult it  is  to  find  out  the  truth,  and  avoid  error. 
Let  those  treat  you  with  rigour,  who  are  ignorant 
liow  rare  and  painful  a  work  it  is  calmly  to  dissi- 
pate the  carnal  phantoms,  that  disturb  even  a  pious 
mind.  Let  those  treat  you  with  rigour,  who  are 
ignorant  of  the  extreme  difficulty  that  there  is  to 
purify  the  eye  of  the  inward  man,  to  render  him 
capable  of  seeing  the  truth,  which  is  the  sun,  or  light 
of  the  soul.  Let  those  treat  you  with  rigour,  who 
have  never  felt  the  sighs  and  groans  that  a  soul  must 
have  before  it  can  obtain  any  knowledge  of  the 
divine  Being.  To  conclude,  let  those  treat  you 
with  rigour,  who  never  have  been  seduced  into 
errors,  near  akin  to  those  you  have  been  engaged  in. 
I  pass  over  in  silence  that  pure  wisdom,  which  but 
3,  few  spiritual  men  attain  to   in  this  life;  so  that 


119 

though  they  know  but  in  part,  because  they  ar^ 
men;  yet,  nevertheless,  they  know  what  they  do 
know  with  certainty:  for,  in  the  catholic  church,  it 
is  not  penetration  of  mind,  nor  profound  know- 
ledgej  but  simplicity  of  faith^  which  puts  men  in  a 
state  of  safety. " 

So  much  then  for  the  conduct  of  the  synod,  in 
denying  forbearance  to  us.  After  we  had  with- 
drawn and  declined  any  farther  conference  with 
them,  they  proceeded  to  other  acts,  at  least  equally 
reprehensible.  By  what  right  could  they  dissolve 
the  connexion  between  us  and  our  congregations? 
How  can  a  synod,  the  offspring  of  political  plans 
formed  in  the  second  century,  and  not  recognized 
in  the  scriptures,  break  up  social  relations,  formed 
in  the  Providence  of  God,  and  on  which  his  bless- 
ing had  long  rested?  How  could  the  synod  per- 
form acts,  which;,  if  justifiable  at  all,  must  have  con- 
stitutionally been  done  by  the  presbytery,  as  an 
original  court;  and  when  their  official  relation  to  the 
church  was  that  of  a  court  of  review?  How  could 
they  proceed  to  such  lengths,  when  they  were  ex- 
plicitly told,  that  one  congregation  had  never  been 
formally  united  to  them?  When  they  were  expli- 
citly told  that  the  other  congregations,  had  /b;*- 
mally  declared  their  willingness  to  retain  their 
pastor,  after  he  had  frankly  told  them  that  he  was 
connected  with  no  denomination  whatever?  Did 
not  our  people  know  what  were  the  opinions  of 
their  ministers?  Did  they  ever  call  upon  the 
presbytery  of  Baltimore,  or  any  other  presbytery, 


120 

or  upon  tlie  synod  itself,  to  interfere  for  their  re- 
lief?    Has   not  their  deportment  since  sufficiently 
evinced,  that  the    resolutions  of    the  synod   were 
oificious  and  uncalled  for?     And  did  not  the  synod 
thereby  leave,  what  they  had  no  right  to  touch,  in 
a  happy  train  for  more  vigorous  dispute,  and  open 
the  door,  as  far  as  they  could,  for  the  entrance  of 
another     power — exciting    appeals     to    the    civil 
arm? — Verily  if  synods  or  presbyteries  may  thus 
interfere  to  distract  congregations,  which  have  nei- 
ther asked  their  counsel  nor  sought  their  aid,  it  is 
high  time  that  the  fundamental  principles  of  such 
church  government  should  be  fully  known,  deliber- 
ately canvassed,  and  for  ever  abandoned;  for  they 
are   utterly  inconsistent  with    scriptural    law,  and 
destructive  of  christian  liberty;  and  they  leave  not 
to  the  freeman  of  the  Lord  one  foot  of  ecclesiastical 
ground  on  which  to  stand,  unless  what  these  lords 
over  God's  heritage  may  graciously  allow  to  him. — 
Did  the  synod  of  Jerusalem,  as  it  has  been  confi- 
dently  enough   called,   do  deeds  like  these,    even 
when  special  messengers  went  and  related  to  them 
the  circumstances  of  the  church  at  Antioch. 

Dr.  M.  however,  goes  clear  through  w^ith  his 
defence  of  the  synod,  and  justifies  even  these  far 
stretched  acts  of  power.  His  argument,  as  usual, 
is  constructed  on  the  assumption  that  the  church  is 
a  voluntary  association.  And  notwithstanding  the 
congregation  never  did  declare  their  approbation  of 
the  union,  he  infers  from  the  fact,  that  because  the 
session  sent  an  elder  to  the  Second  Presbytery  of 


121 

Philadelphia,  and  because  that  presbytery  sent  that 
particular  elder  to  the  assembly,  therefore  the  con- 
gregation did    voluntarily  place  themselves  under 
the  discipline  of  the  Presbyterian  church.      Indeed! 
Was  this  doing  the  thing  formally;  or  formally 
enough  to  justify  the   synod  in  such  high  handed 
measures?     We  withdrew  far  more  formally,  when 
our  note,  which  was  read  in  the  synod,  was  addressecf 
to  the  presbytery  of  Baltimore.   Want  oi  formality 
is  every   thing,  it  seems,  in  one  case,  and  it  is  no- 
thing in   the   other.      What   we  had   done  was  not 
formally   done,  and  therefore  the  synod  would  not 
recognize  the  act.      One  congregation  had  done  no- 
thing formally,  and  yet  they  would  recognize  them; 
the  other    congregations   had    acted   formally,    but 
Still  they  were  not  safe.     This  defence  which  Dr. 
M.  has  set  up  will  not  answer.     It  ought  to  be  put  on 
moral  grounds  simply,  or  on  the  principle  of  eccle- 
siastical formalities  simply;  and  yet  in  neither  case 
can  it  be  substantiated.     And  the  looseness,  ecclesi- 
astically speaking,  in  which  these  things  were  found, 
providentially  gave  to  the  synod  an  opportunity  to 
leave  our  congregational   relations  undisturbed,  un- 
til the  people  themselves  had  applied  for  their  pro- 
tection.     Had  they  retired   in  this  peaceful  man- 
ner,   they   would  have  been    guilty  of   no   incon- 
sistency with    their  own  constitutional  laws,    and 
might  have  prevented  many  unpleasant  consequen- 
ces that  have  followed. 

I  feel  tired  of  this  argument,  which  is  so  much 

connected  with  personal  circumstances.     But  Dr. 
II 


122 

l\l.  in  his  statement,  having  said  some  other  things, 
from  being  misinformed,  or  from  reasoning  rather 
too  rapidly,  I  am  obliged  to  pursue  it  a  little  far- 
ther. ^'The  brethren,''  (Mr.  McL.  and  myself) 
he  says,  *^had  shown  themselves  iiidefatigable  in 
the  propagation  of  their  hostile  sentiments."  I  do 
not  know  on  what  authority  this  assertion  has  been 
made;  but  I  do  know  that  it  is  not  correct.  Mr. 
McL.  had  delivered  a  discourse  at  the  opening  of  a 
session  of  the  second  presbytery  of  Philadelphia, 
which  was,  by  special  appointment,  addressed  to 
his  brethren  in  the  ministry.  In  like  manner,  by 
special  appointment,  I  had  delivered  a  discourse  at 
Princeton,  intended  for  the  consideration  of  the 
ministry.  And  may  not  ministers  he  preached  to? 
Is  there  any  presumption  in  a  brother's  venturing 
earnestly  to  exhort  them  to  study  their  Bibles,  or 
carefully  to  guard  them  against  the  influence  of  hu- 
man authority?  Or  having  done  it,  with  a  spirit 
frank  and  generous,  shall  they  raise  a  clamour,  en- 
list their  church  courts,  proceed  to  cast  us  out  of 
the  church,  and  then  complain  that  we  have  griev- 
ously troubled  their  Israel? — My  discourse,  in  con- 
sequence of  being  defamed  by  common  report,  was 
sent  to  the  press,  that  the  public  might  know  where 
to  find  me.  Mr.  McL.  was  arraigned  before  his 
presbytery,  and  they  refused  to  censure  him. 
There  the  matter  should  have  ended.  But  Dr.  M. 
wrote  and  published  a  long  lecture,  running  the 
whole  range  of  the  subject  of  creeds,  as  far  as  the 
argument  afforded   by    voluntary  associations  wa* 


123 

concerned;  Dr.  Green  followed  with  a  long  and 
harsh  review; — must  I  be  silent,  and  suffer  myself 
thus  to  be  brought  before  the  public  as  heretical 
and  wicked?  The  book  appeared  in  reply.  Dr. 
G.  undertook  to  answer  in  a  second  review,  more 
offensive  than  the  first;  church  courts  began  to  play 
their  part,  and  our  ecclesiastical  relations  were  vio- 
lently assailed;  the  public  newspapers  were  em- 
ployed, and  our  names  were  published  from  village 
to  village,  and  from  state  to  state,  as  men  condemn- 
ed and  rejected  by  a  very  conscientious  and  gene- 
rous synod.  Any  of  these  occurrences  afforded  us 
an  opportunity  again  to  write  and  publish;  but  wc 
have  borne  it  all  in  silence.  Is  this  being  inde- 
fatigable in  the  propagation  of  our  hostile  senti- 
ments? 

We  have  never  carried  the  controversy  to  our 
own  pulpits,  nor  to  other  pulpits.  We  have  not 
gone  from  house  to  house,  seeking  proselytes. 
Young  men,  under  our  care,  have  been  left  to  the 
enjoyment  of  their  own  sentiments;  and  we  have 
done  nothing  with  them,  but  to  endeavour  to  lead 
them  into  the  habit  of  analyzing  the  scriptures  for 
themselves.  Is  this  being  indefatigable? — Or  if  we 
had  done  all  that  is  ascribed  to  us,  if  we  had  created 
opportunities  of  exhibiting  our  sentiments,  could 
any  man  wonder?  Have  we  not  been  preached  at 
from  pulpit  after  pulpit, — our  sentiments  misrepre- 
sented, and  our  motives  traduced?  Has  there  not 
been  every  species  of  effort  tried,  which  ingenuity 
could  invent,   or   civil   law   sanction,   in  order  to 


124 

©verthrow  and  crush  us?  Have  we  not  been  sim- 
ply defending  ourselves  against  our  indefatigable 
opponents? 

Dr.  M.  further  says,  that  in  our  conference  with 
the  committee,  we  ^^claimed  a  right  freely  to  ex- 
press our  opinions  on  all  occasions,  on  which  we 
should  think  it  our  duty  so  to  do,  and  to  act  ac^ 
cordingly.^^  And  what  is  there  strange  in  all  this? 
What  else  could  honest  men  do?  Must  they  sur* 
render  their  opinions,  or  not  do  their  duty? — We 
have  freely  allowed  others  to  have  consciences,  and 
never  made  the  denial  of  creeds  a  term  of  commu- 
nion with  us.  But  it  is  because  we  demand  for  our- 
selves the  rights  of  conscience,  that  all  these  un- 
manly assaults,  and  ungenerous  proceedings,  have 
been  commenced  and  carried  on. 

Dr.  M.  reasons  out  our  claim  to  its  conclusion^ 
and  tells  the  church,  that  ^ 'every  time  a  candidate 
was  to  be  licensed  or  ordained  by  the  presbytery, 
with  which  we  should  have  been  connected,  a  con- 
fessional battle"  would  be  fought.  I  do  not  know 
for  which  party  Dr.  M.  intends  this  augurial  decla- 
ration. If  he  designed  to  foretell  our  course,  we 
are  happy  in  the  consciousness  of  possessing  feelings 
considerably  elevated  above  such  manoeuvres. 

We  stipulated  with  the  committee  in  the  first  place 
for  the  freedom  of  the  press.  This  was  done,  be- 
cause we  supposed  that  the  whole  subject  ought  to 
be  kept  out  of  church  courts,  and  that  it  would  be 
brought  to  a  speedier,  and  a  safer,  issue  through  the 
press:    and  because  that   others   had    written,  and 


125 

would  perhaps  again  write,  on  the  other  side  of  the 
subject.  We  candidly  informed  the  committee,  that 
at  that  time  we  had  no  intention  of  writing  any 
thing  farther,  as  we  knew  of  nothing  that  demand- 
ed a  reply  from  us.  But  I  must  frankly  say,  that 
I  very  frequently  thought,  that  after  the  decision  of 
the  synod  should  be  known,  Dr.  M.  would  follow 
it  up  as  he  has  done;  and  I  had  no  idea  of  commit- 
ting the  censorship  of  the  press  to  the  synod  of  Phi- 
ladelphia, or  of  covenanting  away  my  right  to  answer. 
As  to  the  presbytery  of  Baltimore,  we  promised 
to  leave  them  as  much,  or  as  little,  of  the  confession 
of  faith  as  they  pleased,  and  to  act  with  them  as  far 
as  we  conscientiously  could.  The  following  cases 
were  stated  as  illustrations  of  our  views: — 1.  If  a 
young  man  applied  for  licensure  or  ordination,  who 
could  receive  the  confession  of  faith  without  a  scru- 
pie,  we  would  not  interfere;  but  we  would  take  nc 
part  in  that  licensure  or  ordination,  unless  libert\^ 
was  granted  to  us  to  make  it  understood,  that  we  had 
nothing  to  do  with  his  receiving  that  instrument. 
If  this  privilege  was  refused,  v/e  would  then  leave 
the  presbytery  to  conduct  the  ceremony  in  their  own 
way,  and  on  their  own  responsibility, — as  they  can 
do  now.  2.  If  a  young  man  applied  for  licensure 
or  ordination,  who  could  not  take  the  confession 
on  his  conscience,  then  we  would  ask  for  the 
same  forbearance  to  him  that  was  extended  to 
ourselves.  If  this  had  been  denied,  we  would 
affectionately  and  respectfully  plead  his  cause: 
and  in  case  of  a  failure,  we  would  leave  the  pres- 
11^ 


12B 

bytery  to  answer  to  their  Master  for  the  consequefl- 
ces.  At  the  same  time,  should  the  individual  so 
aggrieved  carry  his  cause  to  the  synod,  or  the 
assembly,  we  would  consider  ourselves  as  at  full 
liberty  to  have  pleaded  his  cause  there. — A  con- 
fessional battle,  under  such  circumstances,  should 
then  have  been  waged  by  the  presbytery  in  with- 
holding forbearance. 

Such  a  course  requires  some  honourable  feelings, 
and  some  sympathies  with  the  difficulties  of  human 
society,  which  we  were  supposed  not  to  possess:  and 
yet  for  which  we  were  willing  to  give  our  brethren 
full  credit.  But  as  a  member  of  the  second  presby- 
tery of  Philadelphia,  I  had,  (Mr.  McL.  was  not 
present)  advocated  the  cause  of  a  young  man  on 
such  principles:  and  had  undertaken  to  defend  my 
own,  when,  though  moderator,  I  could  not  consci- 
entiously ask  him  to  receive  or  adopt  the  confession 
of  faith.  ''Happy,"  say  the  scriptures,  ''is  he  that 
condemneth  not  himself  in  the  thing  that  he  allow- 
eth.  And  he  that  doubteth  is  damned  if  he  eat,  be- 
cause he  eateth  not  of  faith:  for  whatsoever  is  not 
of  faith  is  sin."  The  presbytery  consented  almost 
unanimously,  after  having  examined  the  candidate 
as  much  as  they  thought  proper.  No  trouble  was 
Created  by  it,  as  Dr.  M.  says,  but  what  our  oppo- 
nents have  created  by  refusing  to  sustain  his  licen- 
Siure;  or  to  ordain  him,  when  a  congregation,  flour- 
ishing under  his  care,  and  tenderly  loving  his  minis- 
trations, called  for  his  services.  And  if,  when  Paul 
says,  "judge  not  a  brother^ — for  God  has  received 


127 

him,"  he  means,  that  a  blessing  from  Jehovah, 
poured  out  on  a  man's  ministerial  labours,  should 
protect  him  from  church  censure,  his  busy  and  zea- 
lous opposers  had  better  let  him  alone;  and  Dr.  M. 
might  have  spared  him  the  pain  of  the  unkind  allu- 
sions he  has  made.  Success  in  such  a  case  is  worse 
than  defeat. 

A  very  few  months  after,  we  joined  with  the 
same  presbytery  in  the  ordination  of  another  young 
man,  who  had  none  of  these  scruples,  it  being  un- 
derstood that  we,  for  ourselves,  did  not,  in  any  shape, 
impose  the  confession  upon  his  conscience.  Though, 
by  the  way,  it  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  that,  in  the 
region  of  country  where  it  took  place,  and  where 
there  are  several  congregations  under  the  care  of 
the  General  Assembly,  after  inquiry  was  made, 
there  was  not  a  single  copy  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  to  be  obtained.  There  w\is  of  course,  some 
argument,  growing  out  of  this  latter  circumstance, 
but  there  was  no  interruption  to  the  harmony  and 
good  feeling  of  the  presbytery. 

Such  a  course.  Dr.  M.  contemplates,  should  have 
ultimately  made  the  presbytery  of  Baltimore 
anti-confessional,  and  ^ ^converted  it  into  a  machine 
for  multiplying  its  own  advocates,  to  an  indefinite 
extent,  and  sending  them  all  over  the  church."  I 
cannot  disguise  my  feelings,  when  our  opponents 
themselves  thus  bear  a  tribute  of  respect  to  the  po- 
tency of  our  principles,  and  to  the  accuracy  of  our 
judgment.  This  statement,  which  Dr.  M.  makes, 
demonstrates  that  society  only  asks  for  an  opportu- 


128 

nify  to  throw  off  these  ecclesiastical  shackles,  and 
she  will  do  it.  I  believe  he  is  rights  and  my  heart 
exults  in  the  prospect,  whenever  it  is  not  too  timid 
to  realize  its  approach.  And  does  Dr.  M.  suppose 
that  our  being  detached  from  the  synod  will  prevent 
that  result?  No  verily;  such  measures,  however  de- 
fended, only  aggravate  the  evil;  present  it  in  more 
visible  form ;  and  give  to  men  such  thoughts  as  they 
never  had  before.  If  we  have  not  obtained  a  single 
friend  to  go  with  us  to  the  whole  length  of  our  opin- 
ions, as  he  intimates,  there  are  many,  as  his  corres- 
pondent informs  him,  who  unequivocally  condemn 
the  measures  of  the  synod,  and  whose  voice  ma^  be 
heard,  when  silence  can  no  longer  be  endured. — 
**The  present  paroxysm  of  feeling  and  of  clamour," 
by  which  Dr.  M.  so  handsomely  describes  the  re- 
ligious sympathies  of  the  community  in  which  he 
dwells,  may  not  ''pass  away"  as  soon  as  he  expects. 
But  if  it  does,  then  it  will  only  be  to  burst  forth, 
with  greater  power,  at  a  later,  but  more  auspicious 
period,  when  this  cause,  for  which  we  plead,  will  un- 
veil all  its  beauty,  and  extend  its  influence  from  pole 
to  pole,  and  from  the  rivers  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 
It  is  ImmanuePs  dominion  over  the  human  mind, 
to  be  sustained  by  the  light  of  his  word  and  spirit, 
for  which  we  plead;  and  which  angels  in  heaven 
will  league  with  the  redeemed  on  earth  to  carry,  like 
a  horn  of  divine  munificence,  to  pour  out  its  spiri- 
tual bounties  on  all  the  nations  of  the  world. 


129 


CONCLUSION. 

In  concluding  tliese  observations,  there  is  one 
other  view  of  the  general  subject,  which,  as  Dr.  M 
observes,  certainly  deserves  very  ^^grave  considera- 
tion.*' **You  give  me  to  understand,"  says  Dr.  M. 
to  his  correspondent,  ^Hhat,  although  you  are  your- 
self friendly  to  creeds  and  confessions  under  cer- 
tain limits;  that  yet  you  have  been  constrained  to 
doubt  whether  any  creed,  intended  to  be  subscribed 
by  all  candidates  for  office  in  a  church,  ought  ever 
to  contain  any  other  articles  than  those  which  are 
strictly  fundamental, " 

In  venturing  briefly  to  remark  upon  this  view  of 
the  subject,  I  must  say,  at  the  outset,  that  I  consi- 
der ecclesiastical  creeds  to  be  injurious  in  every 
form.  If  they  are  reduced  in  size,  they  may  be, 
proportionally,  less  hurtful:  or  perhaps  they  may 
be  equally  oppressive.  There  are  some  small,  as 
well  as  some  large,  creeds  in  the  church;  and  the 
one  seems  to  serve  the  purpose  of  ecclesiastical 
dominion,  or  of  governing  a  voluntary  association, 
as  well  as  the  other.  And  besides,  the  different 
points  of  theological  controversy  may  be  expressed 
within  a  very  narrow  compass,  and  the  church  be 
kept  in  turmoil  and  distraction  to  the  end  of  time, 
unless  her  great  Head  prevent.  The  early  creeds, 
at  the  council  of  Nice  and  afterwards,  were  small. 
But  the  contentions,  to  which  they  gave  interest 
and  form,  have  lasted  until  the  present  hour.     And 


130 

the  fact  must  ever  be  the  same,  until  the  church 
becomes,  what  her  Master  intended  she  should 
be, — a  purely  moral  association;  distinguished  by 
principles,  which  I  have  never  shown  any  disposi- 
tion to  surrender,  and  which  Dr.  M.  happily  de- 
scribes as  being  *  ^absolutely  essential  to  christian 
character;"  and  devoted  to  sustain  a  conflict  with 
sin  in  the  world,  by  weapons  that  are  not  ^^carnal,'' 
but  spiritual  or  moral.  Such  is  my  candid  opin- 
ion; and  for  myself,  I  must  protest  against  an  ec- 
clesiastical creed,  of  any  mould  or  size,  being 
pressed  upon  my  conscience,  or  the  conscience  of 
any  other  man,  who  may  scruple  the  propriety  of 
such  a  measure.  And  this  I  say,  not  from  any  de- 
sire to  avoid  giving  "a  reason  for  the  hope  that  is 
in  me,"  for  that  has  been  frequently  and  fully  done; 
and  those,  with  whom  I  have  heretofore  been  asso- 
ciated, have  as  much  personal  knowledge  on  that 
subject,  as  they  have  either  right  or  necessity  to 
demand. 

At  the  same  time  others  may  think  differently. 
They  may  conceive  ecclesiastical  creeds  to  be  both 
necessary  and  useful:  and  they  may  plead  con- 
science  with  as  much  earnestness  and  candour  as  I 
can  do.  The  feelings  and  habits  of  society  ought 
to  be  respectfully  treated,  and  patiently  borne  with. 
On  this  principle  was  based  my  conference  with  the 
committee,  appointed  by  the  synod;  and  on  this 
same  principle  should  I  continually  feel  myself 
called  upon  to  act  with  my  fellow  men.  If  then 
the  present  illustrations  shall  be  found  to  coincide 


131 

with  the  suggestion  which  Dr.  JVPs  correspondent 
has  made,  these  previous  explanations  may  protect 
them  from  being  misunderstood. 

I  have  been  grossly  misinformed,  if  there  are  not 
many,  in  the  presbyterian  church,  who  think  their 
excellent  standards  to  be  very  much  too  large. 
They  seem  to  think  that  the  writers  in  the  present 
controversy  are  all  astray;  and  that  a  middle  course 
ought  to  be  taken.  Why  then  do  they  not  propose, 
and  advocate,  such  a  reform?  It  certainly  rests 
with  them  to  remonstrate  against  an  evil  which 
they  see,  and  to  provide  a  remedy  which  they  think 
should  be  effectual.  The  fact,  however,  that  such 
ideas  are  cherished,  if  it  be  a  fact,  deserves  very 
serious  consideration;  as  it  presents  an  opportunity 
of  affording  very  extensive,  if  not  entire,  relief;  and 
may  call  forth  a  good  deal  more  biblical  investiga- 
tion than  is  common. 

Dr.  M.  does  not,  however,  favourably  receive 
such  an  overture.  His  opinion  is,  that  an  ecclesi- 
astical creed,  '^not  only  lawfully  may,  but  always 
ought,  to  contain  a  number  of  articles  besides  those 
which  are  fundamental."  Of  this  opinion  he  offers 
various  illustrations;  and  the  cases  which  he  speci- 
fies, are  not  without  their  force,  though  they  ai'e 
far  from  being  insuperable.  Differences  of  opinion, 
it  must  be  conceded,  have  always  existed;  and  they 
always  must  exist,  while  men  have  different  talents, 
and  are  placed  in  different  circumstances.  But  can 
human  creeds  obliterate  these  differences?  Or  do 
they  not  rather  perpetuate  them,  and,  by  creating 


132 

parties,  extend  the  collision?     In  the  present  eondi- 
tion   of  the  church,   while  divided  into   voluntary 
associations,  and  zealously  contending  for  sectarian 
articles,  is  there  any  likelihood  that  a  reconciliation 
will  very  speedily  take  place?     Is  there  any  proba- 
bility of  such  a  happy  issue,  on  any  other  principle 
than   this, — that,    divested  of   the  prejudices  of  a 
party,   men  should  be  constrained  to  study  the  Bi- 
ble for  themselves?     To  my  mind  this  seems  to  be 
the  only  feasible  plan,    in  consistency  with  human 
free-agency.      It  might  be  slow  in    its  operations, 
but  it  would  be  certain  and   eifectual:  and  would 
save  society  from  those  dreadful  judgments,  which, 
reasoning  from   the   history  of  past  ages,   may  ere 
long  overtake  her;  and   which  will   devolve   upon 
generations  yet  to  come  the   duty  of  remodelling 
our  social   institutions  on  simple  and  better  princi- 
ples.     The  proposition,  made  by   ^^a  gentleman  of 
Baltimore,"   might  prove   to   be,   if  adopted,   the 
beginning  of  better  days,  and  the  harbinger  of  an 
entire  redemption  from  the  control  of  sectarian  law. 
Each  successive  generation  Avould  learn  to  find  truth 
somewhere   else  than  in   theological  subtleties,   or 
external  forms.      That  which  is  substantial  in  mo- 
rals would  every  day  appear  more  important  and 
desirable;    an  extended   intercourse,   with  a  more 
candid  exchange  of  sentiments,  would   occur;  and 
the  direct  consequence  would  be,  a  much  greater 
degree  of  assimilation  than  now  exists  even  in  the 
same  denominations.      Such  is  the  effect  of  chris- 


133 

tian  love,  which  the  scriptures  themselves  warrant 
us  most  distinctly  to  state. 

The  first  case  which  Dr.  M.  adduces,  in  order  to 
exemplify  his  meaning,  is  the  following: — '^The 
presbyterian  church,  and  most  other  denominations, 
who  have  a  regular  system  of  government,  be- 
lieve that  the  christian  ministry  is  a  divine  ordi- 
nance.— Yet  there  are  very  pious,  excellent  men, 
who  have  adopted  the  sentiments  of  some  high- 
toned  Independents,  who  verily  think  that  every 
*^'gifted  brother,"  whether  ordained  or  not,  has  as 
good  a  right  to  preach  as  any  man;  and,  if  invited 
by  the  church  to  do  it,  to  administer  the  sacra- 
ment^"— The  question  between  these  differing  opin- 
ions, Dr.  M.  says,  is  not  fundamental,  and  that 
no  ^'sober-minded  presbyterian"  would  consider  it 
so.  Now,  if  it  were  not  that  our  ecclesiastical  creeds 
interfered  to  prescribe  certain  sectarian  notions, 
there  might  be  some  opportunity  afforded  to  argue 
this  question,  and  very  much  to  the  moral  advantage 
of  religious  society. 

If  our  creeds  were  not  in  the  way,  I  should  say, 
that  a  '^gifted  brother,"  whose  services  the  people 
needed  and  solicited,  ought  to  preach,  and  that  this 
is  the  '^divine  ordinance."  Perhaps,  after  throw- 
ing their  minds,  untrammelled  by  sectarian  re- 
strictions, upon  the  scripture  page,  this  matter 
might  be  conceded. — What!  And  may  every  man 
then  preach,  without  any  reference  to  a  ministerial 
distinction?  I  did  not  say  so.  There  may  be  ex- 
travagances on  all  sides.  If  none  but  men  of  clas- 
12 


134 

sical  education,  according  to  our  sectarian  ideas, 
may  go  into  the  pulpit,  how  might  we  suppose  a 
man,  occupying  moral  grounds,  to  reason  under 
circumstances  like  these?  I  do  desire  the  office  of 
a  bishop — my  * 'bowels  yearn"  over  multitudes 
perishing  around  me — I  am  confident  that  I  under- 
stand the  gospel,  and  that  I  can  tell  my  fellow  men 
what  they  should  do  to  be  saved — I  ventured  late- 
ly, under  the  pressure  of  circumstances,  and  after 
much  earnest  prayer,  to  address  them — my  fellow 
sinners  tell  me  their  eyes  have  been  opened,  and 
that  they  wish  to  hear  more — by  a  divine  blessing 
many  have  become  ''hopefully  pious" — no  regular- 
ly ordained  minister  is  on  the  spot — the  streams 
from  theological  seminaries  are  like  drops  to  the 
ocean — now  what  shall  I  do?  Apply  for  ordination 
to  a  presbytery?  I  have  no  theological  learning, 
and  I  shall  be  refused.  Must  I  leave  these  poor 
sinners  and  their  little  ones  to  perish,  when  I 
can  tell  them  what  they  ought  to  do? — I  can  readi- 
ly conceive  that  sectarian  law  may  become  relaxed 
under  such  a  moral  urgency;  for  there  are  some 
such  cases,  which  scarcely  any  sectarian  can  stand. 
He  has  resolved  to  preach,  and  a  blessing  comes 
down  upon  his  labours.  Christ's  ministers  may  not 
have  ordained  him,  but  the  Master  himself  has 
done  it.  Is  there  any  wonder,  that  human  beings, 
who  so  often  reason  wrong,  should,  out  of  an  occur- 
rence of  this  kind,  inconsiderately  manufacture  a 
general  law?  And  if  our  creeds  did  not  prevent 
us  from  reasoning  in  a  compassionate  and  feeling 


135 

maiiAer  about  the  moral  necessities  of  our  race, 
might  not  this  whole  difficulty  be  easily  removed? 
Besides.  Is  not  the  presbyterian  church  itself, 
often  compelled  to  employ  a  **gifted  brother,"  to 
meet  certain  conditions  of  human  society,  where  a 
learned  brother  is  not  to  be  obtained?  Do  notpres- 
byterians  see,  that  divine  providence  very  often 
makes  a  minister,  and  one  most  gloriously  success- 
ful too,  who  never  had  the  advantage  of  a  theologi- 
cal education?  And  would  it  not  very  much 
contribute  to  the  enlargement  of  the  presbyte- 
rian church,  and  to  the  salvation  of  the  souls  of 
men,  if  a  multitude  of  these  ' 'gifted  brethren" 
would  arise  in  the  midst  of  our  numerous  vacan- 
cies^ and  direct  men  on  the  road  to  heaven?  But 
the  presbyterian  standards  call  for  classical  qualifi- 
cations; and  without  men,  who  have  been  drinking 
at  the  fountain  of  science,  their  vacancies  must  be 
vacancies  still.  This  case,  by  which  Dr.  M.  would 
exemplify  his  meaning,  grows  out  of  the  moral 
condition  of  society;  and  if  there  was  no  other  rea- 
son why  our  sectarian  regulations  should  be  abolish- 
ed, the  existence  of  such  cases  is  a  sufficient  one. — 
In  the  very  form  in  which  Dr.  M.  states  his  own 
example,  it  is  only  a  lesser  evil  controlling  a  greater 
one;  and  one  too,  which,  if,  in  such  cases,  it  be  an 
evil,  seems  to  be  protected  from  censure  by  the 
happy  consequences  which  have  followed.  When 
our  fixed  creeds  shall  have  lost  their  commanding 
influence,  this  interesting  subject  may  display  its 
own  importance  to  the  eyes  and  consciences  of  pro- 


136 

t'essing   christians;    and   the   extravagances   on    all 
sides  may  be  very  easily  corrected. 

A  second  example  is  stated  in  the  ^^Letter." — 
^'The  question  between  presbyterians  and  prelatists 
is  generally  acknowledged  not  to  be  fundamental.  — 
Still  is  it  not  plain,  that  a  body  of  ministers,  entire- 
ly differing  among  themselves  as  to  this  pomt^ 
though  they  might  love,  and  commune  with  each 
other,  as  christians,  could  not  possibly  act  harmo- 
niously together  in  the  important  rite  of  ordination; 
whatever  they  might  do  in  other  religious  con- 
cerns?" Perhaps  there  has  no  severer,  and  yet  less 
profitable,  controversy  existed  in  the  church,  than 
that  to  which  Dr.  M.  here  alludes;  and  it  appears 
to  be  no  nearer  an  amicable  settlement  now,  than  it 
was  centuries  ago.  I  am  not  an  episcopalian.  I 
am  dipresbyterian;  notwithstanding  Dr.  M.  thinks 
it  a  '^burlesqueuponevery  principle  of  ecclesiastical 
nomenclature, "to  call  myself  such;  and  though  I  am 
no  advocate  for  synods  or  councils,  or  presbyterian 
'^courts  of  review."  Yet  I  do  not  think  that  this 
controversy  is  worth  half  as  much  as  has  been  made 
of  it:  but  that,  when  the  pretensions  of  the  two  par- 
ties are  fairly  sifted,  they  are  not  very  far  apart 
They  arc  arguing,  in  a  great  measure,  a  mere  ques- 
tion of  ecclesiastical  politics;  such  as  'S'oluntary 
associations"  are  continually  agitating  with  each 
other; — a  mere  matter  of  form,  which  may  admit, 
or  exclude,  the  moral  operation  of  the  gospel  on 
either  side.  What  is  the  real  difference  between 
hearing  a  bishop  preach,  and  hearing  a  presbyter 


137 

preach,  provided  they  alike  preach  the  gospel?  Can 
either  the  one  or  the  other  make  any  thing  more  ol 
it  than  simply  this — hearing  the  gospel?  Does  not 
divine  providence  equally  bless  their  ministrations, 
in  so  far  as  they  act  consistently  with  the  gospel? — 
Or  what  is  the  real  difference  between  a  bishop's 
diocese,  and  a  presbyterial  district — a  state  con- 
vention, and  a  particular  synod — the  general  con- 
vention, and  the  general  assembly?  Are  not  the 
ecclesiastical  principles  very  nearly  the  same, 
and  do  not  the  results  perfectly  correspond  with 
each  other? 

Now  is  it  an  improbable  result,  that  if  both  par- 
ties should  lay  aside  their  sectarian  prejudices,  so  hv 
that  they  might  respectively  examine  the  scriptures 
for  themselves,  instead  of  quoting  the  fathers;  or  if 
they  should  seek  to  construct  the  church  on  a  moral 
basis,  rather  than  to  become  the  advocates  of  eccle- 
siastical power, — is  it  an  improbable  result  that  they 
might  coalesce?  Would  not  a  host  of  ceremonies  be 
thereby  swept  away,  and  the  forms  of  social   com- 
munion speedily   grow   more    simple  and  natural? 
Has  not  Dr.  M.  himself  informed  us,  ^^thatall;9?*e^- 
byterians,  without  exception,   a  great  majority  of 
the  best  prelatists  themselves,  and  all   moderate, 
sober-minded  protestanfs,    of  every   country,    ac- 
knowledge  that   this  point  of  controversy  is   one 
which  does  by  no  means  affect  christian  character 
or  hope," — or  that  it  is  not  fundamental?  After 
such  a  concession,  mutually^  and  generally  made, 
where  is  the  difficulty?   Is  it  not,  rather  to  their 
12* 


138 

common  reproach,  than  any  thing  else,  that  this  co- 
alition has  not  long  since  been  effected?  Did  not 
Archbishop  Usher  again  and  again  propose  a  scheme 
of  the  *  ^episcopal  and  presbyterian  church  govern- 
ment conjoined?"  Nay,  if  I  mistake  not — I  cannot 
now  make  my  reference, — did  he  not  permit  pres- 
byters, of  a  presbyterian  sect,  to  unite  with  him  in 
the  ordination  of  a  presbyter? — Once  more,  I  ask, 
where  is  the  difficulty?  Is  there  any  thing  to  pre- 
vent, save  the  indefensible  doctrine  of  voluntary 
associations,  or  the  dominion  of  ecclesiastical  creeds, 
which  have  transmitted  to  us  some  of  the  worst, 
and  left  out  some  of  the  best,  ideas  and  practices  of 
ages  past?  Do  not  the  scriptures  evidently  contem- 
plate such  simplicity  and  harmony,  when  they  sim- 
ply require  that  elders  should  be  ordained  in  every 
city?  And  are  there  not  moral  feelings  enough  in 
every  community  speedily  to  accomplish  the  whole, 
if  an  opportunity  was  offered?  But  while  the  minis- 
try make  these  things,  which  are  not  fundamental,  as 
important  as  if  they  were  fundamental,  and  so  po- 
sitively assert  them  in  their  ecclesiastical  creedsj  or 
demand  them  by  their  ecclesiastical  laws,  how  can 
a  reconciliation  be  effected?  How  can  peace  be  es- 
tablished where  strife  is,  or  where  angry  feelings 
are  restrained  only  by  a  mere  lack  of  opportunity  to 
express  them? 

Dr.  M,  gives  a  third  example. — **No  man  in  his 
senses  will  consider  the  question,  which  divides  the 
Pedobaptists  and  Antipedobaptists,  as  a  fundamen- 
tal one." — I  approach  this  subject  with  a  very  dif- 


139 

ferent  set  of  feelings  from  those  elicited  by  either  of 
the  other  cases.  There  is  no  form  of  controversy  in 
the  church,  which  T  so  deeply  regret.  It  makes  its 
appeal  to  the  finest  affections,  and  not  unfrequently 
invades  the  tenderest  joys,  of  the  parental  heart. 
But  might  it  not  be  argued  mildly  and  respectfully? 
Might  not  the  Antipedobaptist  consent,  that  his 
brother  should  peacefully  enjoy  a  privilege  he  so 
highly  prizes,  and  leave  him  to  hold  what  he  has 
taken  as  a  scriptural  pledge  from  Him,  who  is  ^'the 
resurrection  and  the  life,''  that  the  little  ^4amb," 
which  has  been  taken  from  his  bosom,  the  great 
Shepherd  has  mercifully  folded  in  his  own?  Is  it 
right  to  disturb  the  exercises  of  faith,  so  calmly  re- 
posing on  the  Redeemer's  faithfulness?  And  on  the 
other  hand,  might  not  the  Pedobaptist  consent  that 
his  brother  should  forego  what  he  feels  not  to  be  a 
privilege,  and  which  he  thinks  his  Lord  has  not 
commanded?  Is  there  any  requisition  that  the  indi- 
vidual, whose  child  is  not  baptized,  should  be  ^^cut 
off  from^among  his  people?"  And  after  all,  is  this 
not  one  of  those  v?ry  subjects,  in  which  a  similarity 
of  sentiment  might  eventually  be  brought  about? 
When  christians  mortify  their  controversial  tem- 
pers^ and  submit  their  minds  to  the  simple  influence 
of  the  scriptures,  light  often  breaks  in  unexpectedly: 
the  Spirit  teaches  an  honest  and  prayerful  inquirer 
whatever  his  soul  earnestly  desires  to  know,  and 
which  is  necessary  to  the  discharge  of  his  own  du- 
ties; He  who  is  the  covenant  God,  not  only  of  the 
righteous,  but  of  their  seed  also,  has  some  tender 


140 

lessons  to  teach  a  believing  parent  even  on  this  sub- 
ject; and  a  difference,  wliich  cannot  be  reconciled 
by  that  species  of  argument,  which  has  been  used, 
might  perhaps  be  readily  healed  by  that  affectionate 
intercourse  which  divine  ordinances  are  designed  to 
cultivate. — The  reader  will  remember,  that  my  doc- 
trine requires  me  to  make  large  calculations  on  the 
influence  of  God's  word  and  spirit. 

Dr.  M.  presses  this  apparent  difficulty  with  con- 
siderable ardour.  I  will  state  a  parallel  case,  and 
apply  his  own  argument  to  it.  In  the  apostolic 
church,  there  w^as  considerable  difficulty  concerning 
the  lawfulness  of  eating  certain  ''meats."  Paul 
argues  on  the  subject  frequently  in  his  epistles,  and 
states  the  question  uniformly  as  involving  nothing 
fundamental.  ''Meat,"  says  he,  "commendeth 
us  not  to  God:  for  neither  if  we  eat,  are  we  the  bet- 
ter; neither  if  we  cat  not,  are  we  the  w^orse.*'  Yet 
there  was  much,  and  very  hurtful,  controversy  about 
this  point.  Ministers  disagreed  as  well  as  private 
christians:  apostles  themselves,  seem  sometimes  on 
opposite  sides:  and  the  whole  interests  of  the  Jew- 
ish and  the  gentile  churches,  as  being  introduced  into 
a  common  heritage,  were  jeoparded  by  their  con- 
tentions. Now  to  apply  Dr.  M'S  argument: — 
"What  would  be  the  situation  of  a  church  equally 
divided,  or  nearly  so,  on  this  point;  ministers  as 
well  as  private  christians  continually  differing  among 
themselves;  members  of  each  party  conscientiously 
persuaded  that  the  others  were  WTong;  each  laying 
great  stress  on  the  point  of  difference,  as  one  con- 


141 

cerning  which  there  could  be  no  compromise,  or  ac- 
commodation; all  claiming,  and  endeavouring  to 
exercise  the  right,  not  only  to  reason, ):i\it  to  act, 
according  to  their  respective  convictions;  and  every 
one  zealously  endeavouring  to  make  proselytes  to 
his  principles  and  practice?  Which  would  such  a 
church  most  resemble — the  builders  of  Babel,when 
their  speech  was  confounded;  or  a  holy  and  united 
family,  'Svalking  together  in  the  fear  of  the  Lord, 
and  in  the  consolation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  edi- 
fying one  another  in  love?" 

This  statement  most  accurately  and  minutely  des- 
cribes the  condition  of  the  apostolic  church  in  rela- 
tion to  '^meats."  Dr.  M.  reasons  right,  when  he 
foretells  the  consequences  of  such  proceedings.  Now 
for  the  conclusion: — They  certainly  ought  to  have 
separated,  as  they  could  not  be  ^'comfortable  in  the 
same  ecclesiastical  com.munion:"  they  should  have 
erected  differentrvoluntary  associations,  and  framed 
creeds,  in  which  they  might  have  asserted  their  own 
particular  belief  on  this  subject,  which  was  not  fun- 
damental: one  should  have  taken  Paul  for  its  head; 
and  another  should  have  taken  Peter  for  its  head, 
every  where  spreading  abroad,  how  rudely  Paul  had 
treated  Peter,  in  reproving  him  for  his  dissimulation. 
Most  assuredly  this  is  the  legitimate  conclusion  from 
Dr.  M's  premises.  But  is  it  scriptural?  Did  Paul 
urge  such  a  course?  Or,  when  it  was  likely  to  be 
adopted,  did  he  not  exert  all  his  influence  to  crush 
this  rising  schism?  Did  he  not  forbid  their  doubt- 
ful disputations?     Did  he  not  solemnly  warn  them 


142 

not  to  ''judge  one  another?''  Did  he  not  affection- 
ately exhort  them  to  cherish  that  ''love  which  work- 
eth  no  ill  to  his  neighhour;"  and  which  is  the  "ful- 
filling of  the  law;"  and  to  seek  "to  be  like-minded 
one  towards  another,  according  to  Christ  Jesus," 
that  they  might,  ''with  one  inind  and  one  mouth, 
glorify  GodV^  Did  he  not  command  them — "Re- 
ceive ye  one  another,  as  Christ  also  received  us,  to 
the  glory  of  God?"  Did  the  apostles  at  Jerusalem 
decide  that  it  was  better  for  these  disputants,  more 
conducive  to  peace,  and  more  likely  to  fulfil  the 
great  purposes  for  which  the  church  was  instituted, 
that  they  should  be  separated?  And  down  even  as 
late  as  the  days  of  Justin  Martyr,  did  he  not  feel 
himself  warranted  to  say,  concerning  Jewish  converts 
that  adhered  to  Mosaical  rites,  "that  if  they  did  this 
only  through  their  weakness  and  imbecility,  and 
did  not  persuade  other  christians  to  the  observance 
of  the  same  Judaical  customs,  that  he  would  receive 
them  into  church  fellowship  and  communionV 
And  would  not  like  reciprocal  love  and  forbearance, 
produce  like  happy  results,  and  make  the  mainte- 
nance of  the  unity  of  the  church  equally  practica- 
ble? Why  not?  Human  beings  are  the  same  now 
that  they  ever  have  been:  or  if  they  are  not,  the 
advantage  should  certainly  be  found  Avith  us,  seeing 
we  have  every  privilege  which  our  fathers  had,  and, 
in  addition,  the  benefit  of  their  experience  to  guard 
us  against  their  mistakes. 

I   see    not  then,  why  an   ecclesiastical  creed,  if 
such  a  thing  there  must  be,  should  not  be  redu- 


143 

ced,  so  as  to  embrace   merely  fundamental  mat- 
ters, or  those  items  which   are  *  ^absolutely  essential 
to  christian  character."     Real  Christianity  will  al- 
ways sustain  itself.     If  men    will   only  obey    her 
dictates,  whether  they  be  in   the  ministry  or  not, 
nothing  need  be  apprehended  for  the  result.     But 
when  ecclesiastical  influence  is  the  prize  to  be  won, 
then  any  evil  may  follow^  and  all  the  ecclesiastical 
creeds  which  may  be  made,  cannot  prevent  the  evil. 
But  if  a  course  thus  lenient,  and  evidently  called  for 
by  the  circumstances  of  the  church,  some,  at  least, 
of  the  advocates  of  creeds  themselves  being  judges, 
cannot  be  admitted,  then  they  who   may,  but  will 
not,  afford  relief,  must  take  the  consequences.  There 
is  another  tribunal  before  which  we  must  all  appear, 
and  where  the  law  of  God  itself,  unfettered  by  our 
arbitrary  explanations,  will  form  the  rule  of  judg 
ment.     Not  to  act  according  to  the  word  of  God 
now,  surely  argues   want  of  preparation  for  the  ar- 
bitrement  of  the  last  day. — Reader,  beware.     Pause 
and  reflect.      Ecclesiastical  policy  is  not  redeeming 
love.     Ecclesiastical  creeds  are  not  the  rules  of  the 
Master's  procedure.      The  Bible  is  his— sectarian 
formularies  are  our  own.      Lo!  He  cometh  quickly, 
and  His  reward  is  with  him,  to  give  every  man  ac 
cording  as  his  work  shall  be.      I   pray   you,  '^stand 
fast  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  has  made  us 
free,  and  be  not  again  entangled  with  the  yoke  of 
bondage. ''     ''Hold  fast  what  thou  hast,  that  no  man 
take  thy  crown." 

THE    END. 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  01114  1605 


